ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS

COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Building Regulations (Thermal Efficiency)

Andrew Stunell: What plans she has to improve levels of compliance with the provisions of building regulations on thermal efficiency of houses.

Iain Wright: Before I reply to the question, let me say that I am very conscious that Ivan Cameron's funeral took place today. I am sure the whole House will wish me to say that our thoughts and prayers are with David and Samantha on what must be a particularly unbearable day.
	Our proposals to strengthen the energy efficiency provisions of the building regulations in 2010 will include comprehensive plans to build on previous measures to improve compliance. A number of other initiatives are also under way, including reform of the building control process, extending the powers for prosecution, and simplifying guidance.

Andrew Stunell: I am pleased to hear of the revision of enforcement measures. Does the Minister acknowledge that there is plenty of evidence that, with the development of new technologies and materials, there is an increasing shortfall in the standards of energy efficiency measures applying to new homes? Will he use the problems created by the slump in the building industry as an opportunity to develop an effective enforcement regime and to ensure that there is proper training in the construction industry so that it can deliver the standards that are necessary?

Iain Wright: I know that the hon. Gentleman takes a particular interest in this subject, and what he has said makes a good deal of sense. We have been working closely with key industry stakeholders in the run-up to a public consultation scheduled for April this year. It is vital for us to try to increase the skills and capability of the industry in order to improve energy efficiency. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the present circumstances present a huge opportunity for Britain and the British economy to ensure that homes are energy-efficient, and also to help to stimulate the construction industry.

David Wright: Two or three companies in my constituency want to engage in new kinds of house construction, and are keen to discuss with the Minister how new systems of build can be delivered. Will he agree to meet those companies so that we can help them to grow, build new homes and provide new jobs in our local economy?

Iain Wright: I am aware that my hon. Friend takes a particular interest in housing. I greatly enjoyed the housing summit that he arranged in Telford a couple of weeks ago. He is playing a leading role in trying to secure the housing that is needed there and elsewhere. I should be more than happy to meet him and representatives of construction firms in his constituency to ensure that modern methods of construction are adopted, both in Telford and generally.

James Gray: I thank the Minister for his kind words to David and Samantha Cameron.
	I am sure we all agree with the thrust of this question. Of course we should all like to see an improvement in the thermal efficiency of housing and a reduction in its carbon footprint; no sensible person would not. However, does the Minister agree with me, and with representatives of the Council of Mortgage Lenders with whom I had lunch in the House a short time ago, that a significant brake is being put on the housing market at present by something that he could put right at a stroke—the problem of home information packs?

Iain Wright: A key aspect of HIPs is the energy performance certificate. At a time when people are concerned about rising fuel bills and the economy in general, up-front information about the energy efficiency of a home is helpful to them. In this day and age we need to provide real help with a range of matters, and the energy efficiency of homes is an important part of that.

David Taylor: The manufacture of building materials is a very important industry in my constituency, which is part of a mineral-rich county. Relatively recently, I talked to a manufacturer of chimney linings who suggested that over-zealous implementation of the revised building regulations was leading to the slow death of the British chimney because of its thermal inefficiency. Does the Minister agree that the chimney is important, aesthetically, structurally and in health terms, that we need ventilation, and that we do not want to live in hermetically sealed tombs? Will he agree to discuss the topic with me?

Iain Wright: I do agree with my hon. Friend. In revising the relevant part of the building regulations, we have tried not only to improve compliance and provide extra training, but to issue more guidance to contractors and others so that they can perform the vital task of ensuring that such things as chimneys are energy-efficient. I should be more than happy to meet him to discuss the matter further.

Paul Rowen: May I pursue the question asked by the hon. Member for Telford (David Wright)? Has the Minister had any discussions with the Department of Energy and Climate Change about the development of zero-carbon homes? I believe that the current situation would provide an opportunity for pilots to be set up if grants were available. I understand that none is available at present.

Iain Wright: We are still consulting on the definition of zero carbon, and we are working closely with DECC colleagues. As the hon. Gentleman will know, on 12 February our two Departments launched the heat and energy saving strategy, which is arguably the most ambitious climate change-related initiative in the world. It sets out the Government's ambitious long-term plan to draw up a route map with the aim of enabling all United Kingdom homes to produce near-zero carbon emissions by 2050. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join us in ensuring that it works, and that we see real energy efficiency in homes.

Stewart Jackson: I thank the Minister for his typically decent and kind words of sustenance for David and Samantha Cameron.
	Is it not a cheek for Ministers to lecture everyone else when their own modern headquarters at Eland house has one of the worst energy efficiency ratings of any building, with its display energy certificate getting a risible F rating, which is the second lowest? Does that not reinforce the criticism of the Sustainable Development Commission that
	"The government's own record looks weak"?
	Should not Ministers start to show some leadership and sort out their own backyard first?

Iain Wright: Eland house was built in the 1990s, I believe by Michael Heseltine, and it is somewhat showing its age—rather like the Opposition Front Bench. We are keen to ensure that we have the most efficient type of buildings available. The energy performance certificate for Eland house can provide information on how we can improve the energy efficiency of the building. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will join me in ensuring that such certificates provide relevant information to improve matters, rather than sitting on the sidelines sniping.

Icelandic Banks (Local Authority Finances)

Paul Farrelly: What assessment she has made of the effects of the recent performance of Icelandic banks on local authority revenue and reserves in 2009-10.

Hazel Blears: I, too, would like to send my very warmest thoughts to David and Samantha Cameron at this difficult time for them.
	We are regulating to ensure that authorities need not make provision in their 2009-10 budgets for possible capital loss on these investments. The regulation will come into force on 31 March and will give local authorities time to be clearer about the effect on their budgets and indeed their council tax. We have worked closely with the Local Government Association on that approach. It has been warmly welcomed on all sides. No authorities at the moment are facing cash-flow problems or an impact on their key services.

Paul Farrelly: I thank my right hon. Friend for that welcome reply. Sadly, Newcastle-under-Lyme borough council invested £2.5 million—more than 5 per cent. of its reserves—in the subsidiary of Landsbanki on 14 September last year, just three weeks before the bank collapsed. In doing so, it ignored the warnings of a previous Conservative cabinet member for finance to avoid Icelandic banks. However, since then it has been saying that it is confident that it will get the money back. Does the Secretary of State agree that it is important that councils are open and honest about the investment decisions they make, and that they should not mislead council tax payers about the losses that they face in such circumstances?

Hazel Blears: Clearly, transparency and openness in relation to financial decisions are essential. Integrity and probity go to the heart of local government. I am not in a position to comment on my hon. Friend's individual council. That would be a matter for the district auditor. Clearly, those issues will be raised. What I will say is that the Government guidance said to local authorities that they need to have regard to both security and liquidity, and that in those investments the rate of return has to be consistent with proper levels of security and liquidity.

Peter Tapsell: In the present political situation in Iceland, with whom are negotiations being held and what progress is being made to restore to local authorities, including the district council in my constituency, the substantial losses incurred as a result of having deposits with an Icelandic bank?

Hazel Blears: The Treasury has for some months been in negotiations and extensive talks with the Government in Iceland. The International Monetary Fund has approved a £2.1 billion loan to Iceland to ensure that Iceland can have a sound banking system. Those negotiations will continue. The Local Government Association is also in negotiations on behalf of individual local authorities to ensure that their position is protected.

Nicholas Winterton: The Secretary of State will know that the county of Cheshire disappears in just over three weeks and becomes Cheshire East and Cheshire West and Chester. The existing county council had some £8 million invested in Icelandic banks. Is not it inevitable that the new authorities will suffer financially as a result, particularly when account is taken of the £3.5 million that has been paid to chief executives of the current authorities who have not got jobs in the new authority? That will have to be paid for. In Cheshire East, the transition from the old council has not cost £10 million—it has cost £20 million. Is not that going to prove a problem financially for the council tax payers of Cheshire East?

Hazel Blears: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is aware that the money held with the Icelandic banks is not money that has been lost; it is money that could be at risk. We are pressing extremely hard to make sure that local authorities recover the maximum amount of money that is due to them, in order to protect council tax payers. He will also know that although the reorganisation in Cheshire may involve some up-front costs, in the longer term it will save people in that area a significant amount and improve services for them.

Clive Betts: My right hon. Friend will be aware that the Select Committee on Communities and Local Government is conducting an inquiry on this issue. We found that many local authorities do not have the necessary internal expertise on these matters, so they commission outside firms. What came as a shock to the Select Committee and the Local Government Association, however, was that in some cases that external help was not advice in the properly understood meaning of the term, but amounted simply to passing on to local authorities information that could have been gained from the internet, such as information about credit rating agencies. Does she agree that the guidance to local authorities should be changed to ensure that all of them have access to proper financial advice, either external or internal, on these matters?

Hazel Blears: I am grateful to my hon. Friend and the Select Committee for conducting the inquiry, and I very much look forward to seeing the report. It is essential that local authorities take proper advice and guidance on making investments. Our national guidance was issued in 2004. Of course, we keep it under review, but it was very clear to local authorities about the need to be conscious of security and liquidity, as well as about trying to get a decent return on their investments. I am delighted that the Committee has conducted the inquiry, and I have no doubt the report will have some lessons for all of us.

Caroline Spelman: I will, of course, draw the attention of the Leader of the Opposition to today's  Hansard, which will contain the very kind comments that have been made in all parts of the House.
	Parliamentary questions show that the Financial Services Authority knew in early 2008 that the Icelandic banks were in trouble. It is obliged to warn both the Bank of England and the Treasury of any concerns, so given that Ministers knew that alarm bells were ringing, why was no advice given to local authorities or other investors about the higher risks associated with Icelandic banks? Even the Audit Commission was misled into investing in Iceland. Given that the Secretary of State's Department is responsible for issuing investment guidance to councils, is it not the case that both her Department and the Treasury were asleep on their watch?

Hazel Blears: No, I entirely reject that. Clearly, there has been an issue concerning the behaviour of banks and the investments that have been made in this country and in countries right across the world. The hon. Lady will be aware that Lord Turner, the new chair of the Financial Services Authority, has been asked by the Chancellor to conduct a review of the FSA's approach and to report to him. I entirely reject the allegation that the Department was in some way negligent in its guidance. That guidance in 2004 made it absolutely clear to local authorities that they should look at security and liquidity and make sure that the return they sought was consistent with a very prudent approach.

Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (Section 106 Agreements)

Lindsay Hoyle: What estimate she has made of the sums local authorities have received under agreements under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, which are held in local authority bank accounts.

Margaret Beckett: Information on moneys collected by local authorities in this way is not held centrally. Government policy is clear that local authorities should not amass significant levels of unspent developer contributions without good reason.

Lindsay Hoyle: I might be able to help my right hon. Friend. The Library suggests that about £4 billion of section 106 money is held, and I can say that in my own authority of Chorley, which is a small district authority, almost £9 million in section 106 money is held. As I have mentioned before, we know that there is £3.5 million that can be spent on social housing that is not being spent at present. A new railway station or community centre could be built, as could many other facilities. That would get those in the construction industry back to work, and it would provide the social housing that is needed, as we have an increasing housing waiting list in Chorley. What can my right hon. Friend do to make sure that this money is spent not just in Chorley, but throughout the country, to get us out of this recession now?

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who I know has a long-standing concern with this issue. I think there is perhaps a slight misunderstanding here, as the figures that the Library will have given him are for the totality of section 106 money across the country, and we understand that about 90 per cent. of that is not cash going to the local authority, so to speak, but direct provision of various agreements and planning obligations, and only some £340 million—although that is still a substantial sum—is available through cash contributions, which must, of course, be used or returned for the appropriate purposes.
	I understand completely the point that my hon. Friend makes about wanting to see better use of this money. We give strong guidance to local authorities, and I think he would like to know that, in no small part as a result of his questions on the matter, we have commissioned new research to investigate the use and value of planning obligations for the last full year for which we have data available—2008—and that it will report in the summer. In addition, I have asked my officials to have some research done to understand better the scale and extent of unspent section 106 contributions and to explore the feasibility of pursuing further our work with local authorities to ensure that such money is used for the intended purposes.

Simon Burns: Does the Minister accept that section 106 money and other incomes that all local authorities have put into bank accounts are being adversely affected by the significant drop in interest rates, which is leaving a significant shortfall in the income that local authorities can spend? Do the Government have any plans to tackle that problem, which is no fault of local authorities?

Margaret Beckett: We are indeed helping local authorities to manage their moneys, with greater investment in authorities and more freedoms and flexibilities, and we are giving what advice and support we can. We have commissioned this research to assess the scale of any problem that there may be because it is our understanding that it is not the norm for local authorities to accumulate moneys in this way—indeed, it would be contrary to our guidance—unless they have some particular long-term infrastructure project for which they are pooling resources. We are anxious to help local authorities maximise the use of their resources.

John Leech: The Minister will not be aware that £160,000 of section 106 money from one development has sat in Manchester city council's bank account for possibly up to four years because of the rules and regulations on how it can be spent. Will she commit to simplifying the rules, so that this money can be spent more quickly?

Margaret Beckett: If the hon. Gentleman would like to write to me about the matter, I shall certainly inquire into why such moneys are tied up. As I say, this situation is not the norm, but it is clear that he is aware of some of the issues in his own local authority area. We are encouraging all local authorities to keep and publish records so that local communities can be aware of what resources are available and press to make sure that they are used well.

Julia Goldsworthy: May I, too, associate myself with the remarks that have been made in all parts of the House? I am sure that the whole Cameron family are in everyone's thoughts this afternoon.
	The fall in section 106 receipts is having a massive impact on affordable and social housing development locally. Could the problem not at least be tackled in part by freeing up councils to start rebuilding council homes? The Prime Minister indicated at the end of January that local authorities could play an important role in delivering social housing, but rather than just the promise of yet another report, do we not desperately need action to be taken now?

Margaret Beckett: I just say gently to the hon. Lady that we are already consulting on regulations that would allow local councils to do precisely that; of course one must never anticipate the outcome of consultation, but I anticipate that it may well be possible that we can go ahead in the near future.

Bob Neill: It is five years this month since the Government's own Barker review identified the problems that arise from reliance on the section 106 system and its attendant complexities as a means of driving development. Since then, the Government have added to those complications with measures such as the community infrastructure levy. Against that background and the decline in receipts, to which reference has been made, is it not better to move away from that complicated regime and a system of top-down development targets to one of incentivising local communities and local authorities to accept development by allowing them to keep some of the proceeds that arise to their own tax base from encouraging development?

Margaret Beckett: I think that the hon. Gentleman left out an important development: in the meantime the Government have made available some £8 billion of resources for investment in housing. That is twice as much as the amount that was available in the previous period, which was itself substantial. I think that he was probably referring to the proposals, in so far as one can call them that, in the Conservative party's latest publication of its policies —[Interruption.] I accept that it is a very short read. It is perhaps not entirely well-founded in the statistics that it cites, but I am sure that we will be examining it in future in the House.

Homes and Communities Agency

Desmond Swayne: How much her Department spent on establishing the Homes and Communities Agency.

Margaret Beckett: The one-off costs of setting up the Homes and Communities Agency will be approximately £20 million over three years.

Desmond Swayne: Ministers have made it clear that the agency will have a key role in carrying forward the eco-towns initiative. In doing so, will it make any concession whatever to democratic accountability?

Margaret Beckett: The eco-towns initiative is under continuing consultation. When proposals are made, which will not be for some little time yet, they will go through the ordinary planning process in the normal way. There has been plenty of consultation so far, and I have no doubt that there will be more in the future.

Jim Devine: Will the Homes and Communities Agency have a remit over land maintenance companies? As chair of the all-party group looking at land maintenance and factoring companies, I have been inundated with complaints from all parts of the House about how such companies are treating their customers. That includes companies such as Greenbelt, which this week is using a debt collection agency to take money off my constituents who have refused to pay for an inadequate service. Will that be part of the body's remit?

Margaret Beckett: Part of the main purpose of the agency, and why it was set up to replace the previous bodies, was to facilitate a single conversation that takes into account the range of issues around land, planning, homes construction and so on. I know that it will be concerned about the points that my hon. Friend makes, but if he would like to write to me about the particular issues arising in his constituency, I would be happy to look into them.

Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Does the Secretary of State have any plans to alter the system whereby local authorities that own their own housing stock, such as Stroud, part of which I have the honour to represent, are at a considerable disadvantage under the housing association grant system in comparison with housing associations with regard to the amount of money that they can either reinvest in their housing stock or use to fund future social housing? Does she have any plans to review that system?

Margaret Beckett: Yes; as I said to the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Julia Goldsworthy), we are consulting at present on changing the regulations that have hitherto disadvantaged local authorities in the same position as his own in benefiting from new housing build, and we also propose to make it possible for them to apply for housing grant.

Patrick Cormack: As the right hon. Lady is sensibly reviewing so many things, will she review the whole eco-towns initiative, which is seen by many of us as expensive gesture politics?

Margaret Beckett: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concern, but let me say two things to him. First, it is beyond question and clearly accepted, including across the House, that there is an unmet and growing demand for housing, because of the growth in the number of households. Secondly, I think it is also common ground across the House that something that must be done to address that demand. If it has to be addressed, surely it is better to seek on the basis of some exemplar programmes to provide new housing that meets the standards that the housing of the future will need to meet if we are to tackle climate change. Incidentally, that will also make those houses much more affordable to run. I understand that Opposition Members have sought to use this issue as a campaigning tool in a number of cases, but I am not sure that that is acting in their constituents' interests in the long term.

Sarah Teather: When the Minister was establishing the remit of the Homes and Communities Agency, did she consider changing the rules to allow housing associations to apply for money to refurbish or upgrade empty properties? Does she recognise that the current rules are a disincentive for housing associations to buy up empty properties that could be hugely useful for many people already on waiting lists?

Margaret Beckett: I am always willing to look at anything that is considered a disincentive, but I remind the hon. Lady that, as a result of the September package, we made money available to housing associations to buy up new-build empty properties on which they do not need to do any maintenance. Those properties are ready to be occupied now, and associations have now bought almost 6,000 homes to sell or rent.

Grant Shapps: I am grateful to the right hon. Lady for her answer about the set-up costs of the HCA, which will be some £20 million. She is no doubt also aware that the running costs of the HCA in administering itself will be £100 million per annum, but is she aware that the HCA is reported to be in the process of employing 28 press officers? Does she think that that is appropriate in these austere times?

Margaret Beckett: The hon. Gentleman's numbers are out of date. I think that £100 million was the original prediction for the HCA's running costs. The figure is now expected to be more like £86 million— [ Interruption. ] As I am sure the hon. Gentleman will appreciate—judging from the noises off, not all his colleagues do—it is believed that the amalgamation of the agency and English Partnerships, and the new structure of agencies, will result in substantial savings. From memory, I can say that those savings will be some £400 million, which will allow funding for a substantial number of new homes. I have not been scrutinising the detailed staffing arrangements for the agency, and neither do I think that it is necessarily useful for me to do so. However, it is typical of the Opposition to be much more interested in the number of employees, which they think they can criticise, than in the work being done by the agency, which is releasing thousands of new homes for the use of the British public.

Affordable Accommodation (Private Rented Sector)

Rob Marris: What assessment she has made of the role of the private rented sector as a provider of affordable accommodation.

Iain Wright: Julie Rugg's review of the private rented sector, which the Government commissioned last year, includes an assessment of how well the sector caters for those on low incomes and in housing need. The review reported in October last year. We are currently considering its findings, including proposals for improvements in the sector and for how we can best provide affordable accommodation.

Rob Marris: The private rented sector certainly has a role to play in providing affordable accommodation. However, may I urge my hon. Friend not to rely wholly on the private rented sector, but instead to launch a mass programme of council house building to provide affordable housing and jobs for construction workers?

Iain Wright: My hon. Friend makes a valuable point. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in a previous answer, we are putting in place consultation to ensure that councils have a direct delivery role in the building of homes. The Prime Minister said in a speech last month that he is very keen to see local authorities build quickly and wants any barriers to be removed quickly. In the current economic situation local authorities have a direct delivery role to play, as well as a major role alongside registered social landlords and the private rented sector in providing the accommodation that this country so badly needs.

Anne Main: Given that there are some 2 million-plus empty homes in Britain, does the Minister regret the fact that the empty dwelling management order legislation has been totally and utterly ineffectual in bringing private houses back into use, particularly for low-value rents?

Iain Wright: No, I would disagree with that conclusion. The empty dwelling management order was always seen as the nuclear option, as it were, for local authorities. It is up to local authorities to determine whether they need to press that nuclear button. I think that the threat of the orders has ensured that empty homes have been brought back into use. It could well be that those empty homes are not in areas where people want to live. The local authority has not only a direct delivery role, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Rob Marris), but a strategic role in determining what accommodation is needed in each particular locality and what type of accommodation is needed. I suggest that the hon. Lady speaks to her local authority to ensure that it is using the tools that it needs.

Lyn Brown: In the London borough of Newham, about 34,000 families are sitting on our council's housing waiting list. If we count those who are in full-time employment, we see that their wages are about £24,000 a year. What does my hon. Friend think of the London Mayor's affordable housing strategy, which is predicated on 40 per cent. of social homes being only for families with incomes above £72,000 a year? Is that fit for purpose, especially in these austere times?

Iain Wright: I applaud what my hon. Friend is doing; she is a real champion of people who need affordable accommodation not only in London, but elsewhere. I am keen to work with the Mayor of London to ensure that people in the capital have the homes that they need. I am disappointed by the fact that his housing policy seems somewhat confused. His proposals about affordable accommodation seem bureaucratic, burdensome and counter-productive, and I certainly think that the £72,000 limit is not fit for purpose and is somewhat elitist.

George Young: The Minister will know that many private sector landlords are reluctant to accept people on housing benefit as tenants. Will he initiate discussions with local authorities and representatives of the private sector to overcome that resistance and to make sure that the private rented sector plays a much fuller part in meeting the needs of those with housing problems?

Iain Wright: Absolutely. The right hon. Gentleman takes a keen interest in housing matters, and he was also a very good Housing Minister, so he will know that Julie Rugg presents a valuable analysis of the different segments of the private rented sector, including the housing benefit market. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and I met the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley (Kitty Ussher), this morning to discuss housing benefit reform and how our two Departments can work together to make sure that tenants who use housing benefit are not unfairly penalised. That will certainly be part of the response to the Rugg review.

Karen Buck: The value of the private rented sector is that it provides some mobility and fluidity in a sector that often does not provide that, but it is particularly ill suited to families. Is my hon. Friend aware that some families in my constituency have had to move 10 times in 10 years, either through homelessness or simply because they were placed in the private rented sector? In implementing the private sector review, will he look urgently at what can be done to ensure that families in housing need in private rented housing have some security, for the sake of themselves and their children?

Iain Wright: I agree with my hon. Friend, who, like my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Lyn Brown), is a real champion of people who need affordable housing in her constituency—in her case, that is Regent's Park and Kensington, North. The Rugg review provides a somewhat contradictory analysis of the matter. Some 21 per cent. of tenants have been in their homes for five years or more, but there also seems to be something of a churn, with 40 per cent. of tenants in the private rented sector having moved within 12 months. As I have said before, the Government are considering very closely the recommendations of the Rugg review, and we will be in a position to respond very shortly.

Paul Goodman: As the Minister knows, the Rugg review last October recommended a light-touch licensing system for landlords. Obviously, no one wants that review to be followed by another, given that it followed earlier reviews itself. That approach would be "bureaucratic and obstructive", to quote the Minister's own words back at him, so can he simply tell us by what date that recommendation, or any of the Rugg recommendations, will be put into effect?

Iain Wright: No I cannot, because the Government need to make sure that we respond in a comprehensive manner to the Rugg review. Our objective is to ensure that we have a growing and professional private rented sector. The Julie Rugg review has been enormously helpful in allowing us to consider what needs to be done to ensure that we achieve those objectives. We will be in a position to respond to the review very shortly, and I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will have to wait until then for an answer to his question.

Playing Fields

Andy Reed: What guidance her Department has issued to planning authorities on protection from development of playing fields that have been out of use for five years.

Iain Wright: Our planning policy guidance note 17, "Planning for open space, sport and recreation", makes it clear that playing fields should not be built on other than in a very limited set of circumstances. In addition, Sport England is a statutory consultee on all planning applications affecting open land that has been used as a playing field in the past five years.

Andy Reed: The Minister is right, of course, to say that the protections in place now mean that fewer playing fields are built on. Under the so-called five-year rule, however, it is possible for playing fields that have not been used in that period to be developed. It is not beyond the wit of some unscrupulous people to fence off areas of playing fields and then develop them five years later. Will he give some reassurance that he is looking at that problem? I am willing to work with him to make sure that there is a way to protect the small but important number of playing fields that are lost as a consequence of the so-called five-year rule.

Iain Wright: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that offer, and I pay tribute to the enormous amount of work that he does in Loughborough and elsewhere on sporting matters. The figures that we have show that in the latest year for which data are available, something like 97 per cent. of all planning applications involving playing fields have resulted in improved or protected playing fields and sporting provision. However, I am aware that there may be loopholes in the system, and I have worked and had meetings with my hon. Friend the Minister for Sport on the matter. In addition, we are hoping to review PPG17 in the summer and, given my hon. Friend's expertise in the matter, I would be keen to work closely with him to ensure that we close any potential loopholes.

Simon Hughes: Following that helpful reply, when the Minister reviews the planning guidance, will he consider the proposal that if there is any land in urban areas that has been used for playing fields, allotments or other open space—even more than five years previously—and if anybody can give it a future that is viable and sustainable, whether for sport or other activities, that should be sufficient to guarantee that it stays as open land and is not built on?

Iain Wright: The current planning provision in PPG17 already says that building cannot take place on playing fields if a strong case can be made that alternative sites are available. That remains a strong provision in the planning framework, but as I said, we will look at it again in the summer. I would be keen to listen to representations from the hon. Gentleman on this subject. Protecting and preserving sporting facilities and open space is a key part of what we need to do to make sure that they are available for the community to enjoy.

Traveller Sites

Andrew Selous: What planning guidance and circulars have been issued relating to the provision of Traveller sites since 2005.

Sadiq Khan: Planning policy for the provision of sites for Gypsies and Travellers is set out in Office of the Deputy Prime Minister circular 01/2006, which is helpfully called "Planning for Gypsy and Traveller Caravan Sites". There are additional publications that supplement that planning guidance and are part of the overall planning framework for Gypsy and Traveller sites. All those publications are available on the excellent DCLG website.

Andrew Selous: I represent an area that already has quite a large number of Traveller sites in it, and the Government are asking us to take more sites. Most of the Travellers in my area are foreign nationals from other EU countries, which make virtually no provision for foreign Travellers in their own countries and do not even make provision for Travellers from those countries themselves. Can the Minister explain to my constituents why the United Kingdom seems to be rather out of step with those other countries in this matter?

Sadiq Khan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his supplementary question. The basic principle is that it is for local authorities to decide the needs of the local community. They identify where there is a need and make plans and provision to meet it.  [Interruption.] The problem with the alternative is more and more unauthorised sites. From his own example, and from his colleagues' experience, too, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the cost in human misery that those cause.

Julie Morgan: As chair of the Gypsy and Traveller law reform all-party parliamentary group, may I ask my hon. Friend what discussions he has had about the 90 Gypsy and Traveller families who are due to be evicted from Dale farm, and who include many young children and elderly people? I gave notice to the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Baron) that I would raise this question.

Sadiq Khan: Again, this may not please hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, but it is for local authorities to decide whether enforcement action should be taken, what enforcement action should be taken, and how it is carried out. The example of Dale farm is one in which enforcement action is being taken by Basildon district council. I know that my hon. Friend has highlighted the fact that vulnerable people—the very young, children and disabled people—are involved there, and I hope the council will take on board the concerns that she has expressed and make sure that it deals sensitively with the people affected.

John Baron: Returning to the subject of Dale farm, the Minister will be aware that some Travellers are reported to be preparing to resist an eviction, despite having exhausted all their arguments in court. No one wants to see a forced eviction and the sorrow that that would bring, so will the Government do what they can to use their influence to persuade Travellers to move on peacefully? To this end, will the Government help to identify transit sites, so that families are not made completely homeless?

Sadiq Khan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question. It is for the council to consider what to do. He will be aware that the Travellers have sought leave to appeal to the House of Lords, so we will have to wait and see what the House of Lords decides to do. As he knows, if there are authorised sites available, the police have more options for moving Travellers and Gypsies on. One of the incentives for Basildon to try to find authorised sites is that that gives the police even more powers to take action against the Travellers and Gypsies to whom he refers.

Government Offices for the Regions

Sharon Hodgson: What assessment she has made of the role of Government offices for the regions in enabling people to cope with the credit crunch.

John Healey: Government offices play an important role in supporting the delivery of local services, including advice on credit information and money management. The network of Government offices is also working closely, particularly at the moment, with regional development agencies on supporting local businesses, and with the Homes and Communities Agency on the supply of housing that people need.

Sharon Hodgson: The Minister mentioned RDAs. Does he agree that the part played by One NorthEast, my local RDA, as part of the rapid response group dealing with the loss of 1,200 jobs at Nissan, goes to show how important it is for RDAs to have our continuing support?

John Healey: Nissan is important to the region, and its job cuts are going to hit the whole of the region. That is why it is important that the regional development agency has stepped in to co-ordinate the Government action that can be taken to help the workers at Nissan and those in companies affected through the supply chain. My hon. Friend makes an important point. Those who argue that we can do without regional policy or regional development agencies are wrong: without RDAs, regions such as the north-east would lose out on the jobs, investment and business support that they need, particularly during this difficult economic time.

John Redwood: Would not cutting out the expenditure on Government offices and unelected regional government in England be a no-brainer at a time of a massive increase in public borrowing—to the point at which every man, woman and child in this country has had £70,000 of liabilities and borrowings imposed on them by the reckless financial incompetence of this Administration?

John Healey: The right hon. Gentleman is just plain wrong; he does not get it. In the past few years, the regional development agencies have brought in additional investment of more than £8 billion to deprived areas. I was the Minister responsible for floods recovery, and let me tell the right hon. Gentleman that within four days of the start of the floods that affected wide parts of Yorkshire, the Yorkshire RDA had set up a helpline and a £5 million scheme to support local businesses, the first payment from which was made within seven days. Can the right hon. Gentleman imagine Whitehall, or any single local authority, responding as quickly? That is the value of our regional development agencies, and that is the importance of their work. All that would be lost if he had his way.

Topical Questions

Edward Timpson: If she will make a statement on her departmental responsibilities.

Hazel Blears: My Department continues to work to build strong, safe and cohesive communities. Our priority now is to focus on supporting individuals, businesses and communities through the downturn, and to create opportunities for when the upturn comes.

Edward Timpson: How does the Minister believe the introduction of supplementary business rates—on top of the impending 5 per cent. rise—helps the more than 3,000 local firms in Crewe and Nantwich that currently pay business rates to get through the recession?

Hazel Blears: Clearly, that is a matter for the local authorities, which reflect the views of their communities and their local businesses as to whether they want supplementary business rates. We built a whole series of safeguards into the legislation to make sure that we give people flexibility to raise funds, and so that varying economic circumstances can be taken into account. Hopefully, that is local government at its best, reflecting local priorities.

Eric Illsley: Before the end of 2008, the Government took the decision not to extend the finalisation date for projects funded through EU objective 1 moneys. An extension might have allowed surplus moneys to be utilised in those projects. Has my right hon. Friend any proposals to revisit that decision?

Hazel Blears: As my hon. Friend will know, that is not simply new or free money available to us—it was an extension. The terms on which it was offered by the European Union were extremely inflexible. We have to be aware of how to get the best value for money from these programmes. Nearly £3,000 million is available in the new set of programmes from 2007 to 2013, with nearly £600 million—£531 million, in fact—for Yorkshire and Humber. It may well be that concentrating on those new programmes will be better value for money than simply seeking a bureaucratic extension on very inflexible terms.

Ben Wallace: In a speech to the London School of Economics at the end of February, the Secretary of State said:
	"Ministers should be ready to draw a clear 'dividing line' between groups which"
	the Government
	"will and will not talk to".
	She went on to say:
	"There is a need for moral clarity".
	Will she therefore demonstrate that moral clarity, and join me in seeking from the Home Office the banning of the group Hizb ut-Tahrir, which clearly operates outside any core values of Britain?

Hazel Blears: The hon. Gentleman will know that the activities of Hizb ut-Tahrir are kept under extremely close review by the Government. He will also know, however, that in order to proscribe a group, it has to be concerned with or involved in terrorism. The moral clarity that I absolutely believe we need to have in this area is to say that even where groups are not acting illegally, when they promote values that seek to undermine the shared values of this country, we seek to engage with and to challenge the values that they seek to promote.

Phyllis Starkey: This year, housing completions in Milton Keynes are above target, but housing starts have fallen drastically, in large part because developers who have planning permission for quite large developments are fearful of going ahead because of cash-flow problems. Will the Minister consider giving the Homes and Communities Agency greater flexibility so that it can explore risk sharing with such developers to allow these developments to go ahead?

Margaret Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who has campaigned long and hard on behalf of her constituents and their housing needs. I have already, in various respects, given the HCA greater flexibility to deal with a number of issues that have arisen. I assure her that should it come and say that it has a problem in this respect, I will certainly look on that approach favourably.

Peter Luff: Would the Minister for Local Government find it helpful if I were to repeat in public an assurance that I gave him in his office last week—that I will welcome and accept any amendment from him that improves my private Member's Bill on the payment of small business rate relief? I hope that that might encourage him to support the Bill's Second Reading on Friday.

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman, who chairs the Select Committee on Business and Enterprise so well, has a persuasive way of putting his arguments. I am glad that he supports our small business rate relief, which we introduced three years ago. He is right that it is valuable for small businesses; last year it was worth about £260 million. We are considering whether some degree of automatic operation of the system may be the right approach —and as he knows, his Bill would not achieve that. We think that such action is right, and we are looking at the case for it alongside other measures that may help businesses in other ways, particularly at this difficult time.

Gordon Marsden: For seaside towns such as Blackpool, effective policies to control the concentration of houses in multiple occupation in deprived and tourism areas are key to regeneration, and particularly to incentives to regenerate brownfield sites. Will my right hon. Friend ask the Homes and Communities Agency to give urgent priority to this problem in seaside and coastal towns, and if necessary to revisit its budgets to suit?

Margaret Beckett: I know that my hon. Friend chairs the coastal group of MPs, and that the subject of HMOs is of great concern to him and to his colleagues in that group. I will certainly consider discussing with the HCA ways in which it can help. As he has in the past raised the issue of licensing, I hope that he is aware that my Department has met his local council and is discussing with it whether there are ways in which a suitable additional licensing scheme, at local discretion and at the invitation of the local authority, might be considered.

Andrew Robathan: Ministers will know of the scam occasionally used by Travellers—it happened recently in Enderby in my constituency—of buying agricultural land, moving on to it on a Friday night, putting in concrete standings and utilities, and then applying for retrospective planning permission after the weekend is over, when the council offices reopen. Will the Secretary of State pledge that her guidance will give absolute support to any planning authority that refuses such retrospective applications, and that it will state that all members of society, whatever lifestyle they wish to enjoy, must abide by and are subject to all laws, including planning regulations?

Iain Wright: I can certainly agree with the second part of the hon. Gentleman's question: there is one law in this country, both for Gypsy and Traveller communities and for the settled communities. The concept of the retrospective planning application is an important part of our planning framework, which can take into account ignorance or a genuine mistake, and I do not think that we would want to revisit that. I am certainly keen to enforce the idea on local authorities that each case needs to be decided on its own merits, but allowing for retrospective planning permission does not necessarily mean that planning permission should be approved.

Andrew Slaughter: My hon. Friend will be aware of the recent report by the centre for housing and planning research on behalf of Shelter, which showed that the previous Mayor of London's targets for affordable rented housing underestimated, if anything, the need in London. What can the Government do to ensure that affordable rented housing is built in London, given the current Mayor's abandonment of any targets and his replacement of them with the sort of bizarre, ad hoc announcement that he made last night, without any consultation or Government funding?

Margaret Beckett: I know of my hon. Friend's great concern, and that of many of my colleagues throughout London, about the provision of affordable housing and the considerable housing need that Shelter identified in London. I too have concerns. I am perfectly willing in principle to work with the Mayor on a different way of delivering the affordable housing targets, which he seemed to feel that he could do simply by asking local authorities to co-operate. So far, that does not seem to be delivering. I share some of my hon. Friend's concern, in principle. If the Mayor wants to work with the funding that the Government have made available for London, and to follow in the footsteps of the schemes that we introduced as early as last summer—it sounds as if he is looking at something like our rent-to-buy scheme—I am perfectly willing to work with him, in principle, if it is a way of delivering affordable housing. I am concerned, however, that the proposals in question were not put forward for proper scrutiny and agreement in advance, which does seem a rather chaotic way to continue.

Greg Mulholland: As the recession bites, have we yet seen an increase in the number of rough sleepers? Given that homeless people sometimes hide from view, that local counts are recorded as zero if they are less than 10, and other such recording problems, does he agree that it is time to look at the methodology of recording rough sleeping, so that we can get an accurate picture of how many people are, unfortunately, sleeping rough in this country?

Iain Wright: I absolutely agree with what the hon. Gentleman says. I visited Leeds a couple of months ago, where Faith Lodge and St. George's Crypt are doing tremendous work on provision for rough sleepers. We have not seen an increase in the numbers of people rough sleeping as a result of this recession. That is a result of the biggest ever cash injection we have seen in this country, from this Government, and of better partnership working between local authorities, the voluntary sector and ourselves. But the hon. Gentleman's point is a sound one. We need to ensure that the methodology is the start of the process rather than the end, so that that count, which provides for a consistent process, allows us to see what help is needed to get people off the streets permanently, to ensure that we end rough sleeping once and for all, which is the centrepiece of our revised rough sleeping strategy.

Andrew MacKinlay: May I tell the Housing Minister that the biggest single spanner in the works as regards the delivery of the Government's policy for the Thames Gateway is the eastern region office of the Environment Agency, which perversely, and not in kilter with the London office or the national Environment Agency offices, is blocking all planning applications in the Thurrock area? As a consequence, the Government's policy for residential development, job creation and the building of a new environment is being frustrated. Good developers who have marshalled sites and are up to their necks in debt are now really sweating, and are likely to go under if immediate action is not taken by her, along with the Thurrock Thames Gateway development corporation, to kick the backside of the Environment Agency in Ipswich. It is perverse, bonkers and—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to be brief in topical questions in future.

Margaret Beckett: I hear my hon. Friend's concerns very clearly, as does the whole House. If he would care to give me more details of the particular projects that he feels are being impeded, I would be happy to look into the matter.

Eleanor Laing: In answer to my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), the Under-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government, the hon. Member for Tooting (Mr. Khan) said a few moments ago that in the matter of providing sites for Gypsies and Travellers, it is up to the local authority to make provision according to its own discretion. How can it be then, that the Under-Secretary himself—I have a letter to show this—has directed Epping Forest district council to provide an extra 39 sites for Travellers in our small area, on top of the 94 sites that we already have? That direction has come from the Government. Why are they being so unfair in requiring proportionately more from Epping Forest district than from any other district in the region?

Sadiq Khan: May I give the hon. Lady a short lecture on how the policy in this area works? It is for local authorities to assess need in their Gypsy and Traveller accommodation needs assessments. The results of those assessments are passed to the regional planning body, which uses them to make the pitch allocations for local authorities. Local authorities then draw up development plan documents to accommodate the pitch allocations. I would hope that politicians would not try to scaremonger local people into supporting them by using Gypsies and Travellers.

Linda Riordan: Conservative-controlled Calderdale council is hiding behind equal pay legislation to try to cut the wages of some of its lowest-paid staff by a fifth. Will the Minister confirm that that legislation was not introduced to cut the wages of hard-working council staff? Will he tell Calderdale council to get its act together and protect the terms and conditions of those low-paid staff?

John Healey: Our commitment to equal pay for work of equal value is unshakeable, and we want every local council to undertake to put in place its obligations on that front. I understand that Calderdale council has completed its job evaluation, and it now has a difficult job to do, in consultation and negotiation with the unions, to put in place equal pay arrangements.
	The council will be helped by what I have been able to announce today, which is a further programme of capital cover to help with the back pay costs of equal pay. I hope that my hon. Friend recognises that the general secretary of her own union, Dave Prentis, welcomed that today as
	"a great step forward for thousands of women working in local councils who have suffered pay injustice for years...It shows that the Government is sticking to its commitments to deliver equality and fairness throughout the local government workforce."
	He is right.

Adrian Sanders: Returning to the subject of the business rate, what recompense can the Government give a local authority that exercises its discretion in order to save local businesses that might go under, particularly in weak economic areas? For a number of businesses, that is the difference between whether they survive or fail.

John Healey: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that there is a hardship scheme, including arrangements that give local authorities some flexibility to take such steps. It is limited, but I will send him the details of it, and if he wants to make further representations I will gladly welcome them.

Lindsay Roy: May I ask, in the wake of Gaza, what progress my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has made on arranging the engagement of young people to make communities more resilient against violent extremism?

Hazel Blears: My hon. Friend will know that there has been a series of meetings involving Ministers from my Department, myself and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to try to ensure that we engage young people in particular, but the whole community as well. We have also provided additional humanitarian relief for reconstruction in Palestine, and there is a conference on reconstruction today. At this time, it is vital that as well as involving the Muslim community, we say that whatever the events abroad, they are never an excuse for anti-Semitic attacks in our country. I know that we have the support of the whole community on that.

Points of Order

Mark Pritchard: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, you made a ruling that Ministers should
	"reply in a prompt and full manner."—[ Official Report, 2 March 2009; Vol. 488, c. 587.]
	On 19 January, on behalf of my constituent Mr. Edward Orgill, I wrote to the Chancellor's office about the important matter of guarantees for charitable deposits. Having received no reply, I sent a follow-up letter on 6 February. Still having received no reply, I telephoned the Chancellor's office last Friday, 27 February. I was informed that Lord Myners was now dealing with the matter and was about to sign my letter that day, and that it would be e-mailed to me as a PDF file and also posted. As of this morning, I have still not received that important reply. At 2.9 pm today I telephoned the Chancellor's private office, informing him out of courtesy that I would be raising the matter with you, Mr. Speaker. At 2.16 pm, just seven minutes after that call, I received a telephone call from the Chancellor's private office informing me that the reply could be e-mailed over straight away, and that a hard copy was in the post.
	I understand that Lord Myners might be sorting out people's pension arrangements at this time—and possibly even his own—but surely it should not take points of order to be raised with you, Mr. Speaker, for Ministers to reply, given your ruling of only yesterday that they should reply in a "prompt and full manner".

Mr. Speaker: At least the hon. Gentleman seems to have got a result by threatening the Department that he would raise a point of order with me. I hope that all Ministers act in kind when they are threatened with a point of order on the Floor of the House.
	I assure the House that I meet the Chief Whip regularly and I shall raise the matter with him. It is not right that hon. Members of all parties, who pursue matters on behalf of their constituents, should be delayed unnecessarily.

Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, at the end of Report stage of the Political Parties and Elections Bill, the Deputy Speaker allowed a vote on a new clause that a Back-Bench colleague had tabled, which was not in a group of amendments that had been reached when the guillotine fell. I make no complaint about the Chair's discretion to use the power that Standing Orders permit. However, I ask for your guidance about when the power can be used, given that until yesterday, whenever colleagues asked whether we could vote on an Opposition or Back-Bench new clause or amendment that would not have been reached by the time the guillotine fell, they were told that it was not possible, and that there was no precedent for it.
	How, therefore, are colleagues to know whether an item that has not been reached by the time the guillotine falls will be called? How will they know that there will be a vote? How can they express any view about whether there should be a vote? Above all, how can we have a transparent system, whereby we know whether we can vote on business that is coming down the track, and—more importantly—whether we can debate it? My last point—[Hon. Members: "Hear, hear!"] Everybody's complaint on Report is that we do not have enough time for Opposition or Back-Bench new clauses or amendments. There is a wish for more time for debate, but not for voting, with no chance to debate.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me put it on the record, in case there is any doubt, that the Deputy Speaker was acting on my instructions. I used the powers that the House gave me to allow a vote to take place. I do not need to give reasons for that, but I expect hon. Members to use some logic. Only a few weeks ago, a statutory instrument went through the House that allowed the addresses of Members of Parliament to be kept private. There was a debate on the matter, and when the amendment was tabled, I considered it right and fitting for parliamentary candidates to have that privacy. After all, as soon as a general election is called, every hon. Member becomes a parliamentary candidate. That is simple. The hon. Gentleman asks how Members will know when there is to be a vote. If any hon. Member comes to me or the occupant of the Chair and asks, "Is there going to be a vote on that amendment?" sometimes I say yes and sometimes I say no. It could not be simpler.

Peter Luff: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether you can help me. Later this afternoon or this evening, we will debate motions 5 to 12—eight motions on establishing regional Select Committees. Those of us who oppose the principle of such Committees, and are against having one for our own region, will wish to vote against each and every one of those motions. However, that would detain the House for two hours. Is there any way that the questions can be grouped, if the House agrees?

Mr. Speaker: No, they have to be voted on separately.

Employment Retention

Motion for leave to introduce a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

John Robertson: I beg to move,
	That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for a statutory right to an employment retention assessment to determine entitlement to a period of rehabilitation leave for newly disabled people and people whose existing impairments change; and for connected purposes.
	This is the fourth time that I have brought this Bill before Parliament. The inevitable question is: why do so again? In answering that, I want to outline the purpose of the Bill, which is something with which many hon. Members will already be familiar. The Bill's fundamental aim is straightforward: to help people who become disabled, or who have an impairment that changes, to stay in work and to enjoin and guide both them and their employer in the process of retention.
	In 2007, around 350,000 people moved from employment on to incapacity benefit, at great expense to both the taxpayer and employers, and at great personal cost to the individuals affected. Around 70,000 people spent less than three months receiving that benefit. With such high numbers, employment retention is clearly not an issue that is confined to the margins of society, so it is baffling that it is yet to be given prominence in policy and legislation. The consensus in this House—that improvements should be made to improve employment retention—is as unanimous as the collective grievance outside Parliament that so many people should have become unemployed and fallen out of work, despite being able to continue working and, indeed, having to find new employment shortly afterwards.
	The employment retention Bill has two provisions to address the situation. First, it would provide a right to a period of rehabilitation leave for a person who developed a disability or whose existing impairment worsened while they were in employment. That would allow them, in appropriate circumstances, a short period away from the workplace to come to terms with their condition. At the moment, there is no such right under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; rather, it has been left languishing in the non-binding code of practice for employers, where it is more often argued over than granted. The second key measure that the Bill would introduce is a right to an employment retention assessment to examine a person's condition and advise on the reasonable steps that an employer should take under the Disability Discrimination Act to help someone remain in work. That mechanism is designed to ensure early intervention and clear guidance for employees and employers, engaging them both in the process of retention.
	The Government and the Opposition have both publicly suggested that what the Bill seeks to do is covered by existing legislation. First, however, that is contradicted by the following organisations that support the Bill and which work with people whose experience does not tally with that claim: the Royal National Institute of Blind People, Leonard Cheshire, the Royal National Institute for Deaf People, Disability Alliance, the Stroke Association, Connect, the TUC, Unite and ASLEF. Secondly that argument is simply wrong and an excuse for inertia. Although the provisions in the Disability Discrimination Act are born from the principle and the arguments for employment retention, they remain inadequate when it comes to delivering it in practice.
	In part II of the Disability Discrimination Act, examples are given of reasonable adjustments that employers might have to make. Specific mention is made of allowing an employee
	"to be absent during...hours for rehabilitation, assessment or treatment".
	However, that states only what could take place, not what must take place, how it could be arranged, who could undertake such interventions or what support and advice are available from employers in facilitating that. That is where the employment retention Bill steps in. It is designed to specify a basic mechanism of assessment, which would determine what is needed to enable someone to remain in or return to work. The Bill would provide a framework to both the employee and employer within which the considerations mentioned in part II of the Disability Discrimination Act could be practically applied.
	Furthermore, we know from case law that there is no right to have an assessment to determine someone's condition or the interventions that would be reasonable in the circumstances. In the case of Spence  v. Intype Libra in April 2007, Mr. Justice Elias of the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that the failure to hold such an assessment was not a breach of an employer's duty under the Disability Discrimination Act. He stated that such an adjustment would apply in almost every case and so would at least be expected to figure in a non-exhaustive list of potential adjustments. Until a case is decided otherwise, that decision is binding on other tribunals, so it is plainly wrong to suggest that the right already exists.
	I should not be surprised if the Opposition favoured inaction on the issue, as it was a Conservative Member of Parliament who stopped the Bill from going from Second Reading to Report last year, despite Government backing for it. That is the first sign, and the epitome, of a do nothing party. I find it hard to understand how it would be happy to stand by as people lose their jobs when the law is clear on this matter.
	I acknowledge that the Government are looking to improve retention through a number of different measures, but they are far from enough to make the changes that we need. First, as a result of pressure from the campaign on this Bill, which saw more than 180 MPs sign early-day motion 676 in the last Session, the Government announced last March that they would introduce a cross-departmental strategy on employment retention. So, one year on, what has happened? Nothing. The strategy itself—never mind its implementation—will not come in until the end of the year, at the earliest.
	Secondly, the Government have announced that they will pilot Dame Carol Black's Fit for Work service, which would provide a similar scheme to the assessments in this Bill. Welcome as that is, it will affect only a small number of people and, more worryingly, we are years away from seeing any concrete changes. At the end of last year, the Government reported on a successful similar trial of employment advisers working from within GP surgeries to help people into work. Following positive results, the three-year trial has been extended for a further three years. But more than 1 million people will have moved from work on to benefits in that space of time, so we need some urgency and boldness here. We need the immediate change that a Bill such as this would bring, and we need to secure this for everyone.
	Finally, there is the employability campaign, which is geared at increasing awareness of the Disability Discrimination Act. It consists of an advertising campaign and seminars, and once again falls far short of what is needed. In 2008, not a single employer from my constituency attended a seminar, and in the whole of Scotland, the total was only 26. Those numbers will barely make an imprint on the 350,000 people a year involved.
	I will not speculate on whether a cross-departmental strategy that has done nothing in a year, a poster campaign and a pilot scheme will be enough to secure the place of Ministers in the pantheon of great reformers. We can leave it to history to decide whose name will be mentioned in the same breath as that of Bevan. But what I will say is that we need to do more. For all the apparent concessions, still nothing has changed for a person who becomes disabled in work. The inertia has been constant, but so has the support for this Bill. Throughout the years of working on the Bill with RNIB, I have heard many reasons for doing nothing, and none of them has resulted in the slightest difference to someone who loses their job. That is why I am introducing the Bill in Parliament again today.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That John Robertson, Jim Sheridan, Mr. David Blunkett, Miss Anne Begg, Julie Morgan, Mr. Mike Weir, John Bercow, Dr. Alasdair McDonnell and Dr. Richard Taylor present the Bill.
	John Robertson accordingly presented the Bill.
	 Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 24 April and to be printed (Bill 68).

Prevention and Suppression of Terrorism

[Relevant documents:  The Fifth Report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, Session 2008-09,Counter-Terrorism Policy and Human Rights (Fourteenth Report): Annual Renewal  of Control Orders Legislation 2009, HC 282. ]

Vernon Coaker: I beg to move,
	That the draft Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (Continuance in force of sections 1 to 9) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 3 February, be approved.
	The purpose of the order before the House today is to renew the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005. Sections 1 to 9 of this Act automatically expire after one year unless renewed by order subject to affirmative resolution in both Houses. The effect of this order will therefore be to maintain the powers set out under the Act until the end of March 2010. That will allow us to continue to use control orders to tackle the threat posed to national security by suspected terrorists whom we can neither prosecute nor deport. Since last year's debate on the renewal of the Act, we have had the opportunity to consider the control order powers in some detail. During the passage of the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008, we considered a number of Government and Opposition amendments to the original powers.
	In setting the scene for today's debate, it is important to remember that we have witnessed a number of significant attacks and attempted attacks on our country in recent years. I know that all hon. Members, whatever their views on control orders, acknowledge that. Those assaults undermine our fundamental rights and values through the indiscriminate murder of innocent people. The threat to the UK from international terrorism remains real and serious. Recent trials and investigations have shown that terrorist networks are continuing to plan and attempt to carry out terrorist attacks. We need a broad range of responses to reduce the risk of further terrorist attacks, and our responses must ensure public security while protecting our values and civil liberties.

William Cash: rose—

David Davis: rose—

Vernon Coaker: I shall give way to the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) first and subsequently to his right hon. Friend.

William Cash: The Minister may know that a number of Conservative Members believe that control is essential, but that control orders themselves are defective. Does he not agree that the real problem is the intertwining of control orders with the human rights legislation and that it would be far more effective if we gave people fair trials, followed due process and adhered to habeas corpus, while ensuring at the same time that the House is able to legislate on its own terms to deal with those very real problems, which I fully acknowledge exist, as he said?

Vernon Coaker: I accept the hon. Gentleman's point and I know that there is no disagreement among any of us about the need to tackle people who threaten our way of life. I accept that absolutely, but I also accept that there is disagreement among and between us as to the correct balance between protecting our civil liberties and doing so in a proper way that is consistent with human rights.
	The Government's view—and it is my view—is that control orders actually plug a gap. In that sense, nobody is in favour of having control orders if we could possibly do without them, but they plug a gap in circumstances where we cannot prosecute and we cannot deport. That is the gap we are trying to fill. The hon. Member for Stone made a point about human rights legislation. All along the line we have tried to ensure that what we do is consistent with such legislation. Various court judgments have been issued, and I shall say more about that in a moment, but I am well aware that we have only an hour and a half for debate and many Members wish to contribute.
	We take our cue from what the courts say. No doubt more will be said about the European Court of Human Rights later, but the House of Lords said in October 2007 that the control order regime was not unlawful; and in October 2008 the Court of Appeal reconsidered that and once again concluded that what we were doing was right. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is subject to an appeal in the House of Lords, which is ongoing. The European Court of Human Rights judgment, to which he alludes, will inform that debate, but with the use of special advocates—and our ability to provide various other safeguards—we believe that a reasonable compromise is being made between protecting the public and ensuring that human rights are respected.

David Davis: My question is much simpler. The Minister has repeated the argument of the Home Secretary who introduced this measure back in 2005—that people are put under control orders because of the seriousness of the risk they pose to the public. Will he give us his assessment of the seriousness of the risk posed by the one in five who have escaped control orders?

Vernon Coaker: If anyone absconds or breaches a control order, it is a serious matter, and we do not want to see such breaches. It is a criminal offence to breach a control order. We would obviously want to recapture those people and bring them back under the control of the courts under the control order system. The right hon. Gentleman is quite right to highlight that issue. We do not welcome such breaches: we are obviously unsure about where exactly these people are, and if we knew, we would bring them back under the control order system.

Several hon. Members: rose —

Vernon Coaker: I will give way shortly, but we have only an hour and a half, and a number of Members wish to speak. I have given way to a couple of Members, but if I give way to half a dozen, or seven or eight, some Back Benchers who deserve to be able to contribute will not be able to do so. However, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) made a serious point about absconders. We need to ensure that the obligations that we place on individuals are properly policed and controlled, and that we do all we can to bring those absconders back under the control order system.

Edward Leigh: If one in five people is absconding and not being found, that raises the suspicion that they do not pose a serious threat, because the Government, or the authorities, do not appear to be making the effort to find them that one would expect.

Vernon Coaker: With respect, how does the hon. Gentleman know that? The one in five who has absconded may have gone abroad. We do not know what the position is.
	We have a system that we introduced in an attempt to control individuals whom we have reason to suspect of posing threats. If the hon. Gentleman's point is that the control order system should be abolished, he will have to answer the question "What would you put in its place?"

John Reid: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is no coincidence that those who are raising the deficiencies of the control order system are the first to argue for not a strengthening but a weakening of that system. My hon. Friend knows, as a Minister, that it is a very inadequate system, but surely the answer is to strengthen it and not to do what the Opposition want to do—get rid of it altogether for anyone who falls below the threshold of evidence under which they may be charged and found guilty. Doing nothing when there is unconstrained intention and unconstrained capacity—given the existence of radiological and biological weapons—to murder thousands, perhaps hundreds of thousands, would leave a Government with no weapon at all with which to protect national security.

Vernon Coaker: As a former Home Secretary, my right hon. Friend is obviously aware of the gap that we are trying to plug. He has made exactly the point that I tried to make to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). If we do not use this system, what do we put in its place? How do we plug that gap? I should also point out that we have tightened the system, and no one has absconded since June 2007.

Gordon Prentice: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Vernon Coaker: I want to make some progress, but of course I will give way to my hon. Friend.

Gordon Prentice: The former Home Secretary, the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid), mentioned evidence. I have here a briefing from Liberty, which tells us that we should allow the admissibility of intercept evidence so that people suspected of terrorist crimes could be prosecuted in the courts in the normal way.

Vernon Coaker: My hon. Friend will know that intercept evidence is the subject of the Chilcot review which is currently taking place. A number of Privy Counsellors from all the main political parties in the House are considering whether it is possible to use intercept evidence without compromising national security. There are differing views about that.
	I suggest that my hon. Friend read the report by Lord Carlile, who points out that following consideration of a number of control orders, it was concluded that the use of intercept evidence would not have made any difference in, I believe, nine cases.
	I want to make some progress now—

Frank Dobson: The Coroners and Justice Bill proposes the use of intercept evidence in coroners courts. If interception takes place in countries other than the United Kingdom, it is admissible in our courts. Bugging people's cars, homes or suits, for that matter, is allowed in our courts. Why can we not make more progress in regard to intercept evidence obtained here?

Vernon Coaker: My right hon. Friend makes a point that a number of hon. Members across the House have repeated. That is why the Chilcot review has been set up. Highly esteemed Members of this House, from all the main political parties, are considering whether what my right hon. Friend suggests is possible. No doubt many of the points he makes will be considered by that review.
	Prosecution has been, and continues to be, our preferred approach, because terrorists are criminals who attack the values that we all share. In 2008, 51 people were convicted in 18 terrorism cases, with 21 individuals pleading guilty. Those figures underline the considerable success that the police and intelligence agencies have had in disrupting terrorist plots, and that the Crown Prosecution Service has had in prosecuting those individuals.
	We remain absolutely committed to enhancing the ability to prosecute terrorists. Thus, the Home Office is taking work forward to implement the recommendations in last year's Privy Council review report on the use of intercept as evidence. However, the report explained that in a review of nine control order cases by independent senior criminal counsel the use of intercept as evidence would not have enabled criminal prosecutions in any of those cases—in other words, it would not have made any practical difference.
	Where we cannot prosecute suspected terrorists, and the individual concerned is a foreign national, we look to detain and then deport them. Last month's House of Lords judgments in three cases, including that of the Jordanian Abu Qatada, demonstrated that the Government's policy of deportation with assurances is compatible with the European convention on human rights.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Minister has assessed the workings of this legislation. What assessment has he made of the impact on community relations and community co-operation of the draconian powers that are now held by Ministers and the police in these matters?

Vernon Coaker: It is the same assessment, to be honest with my hon. Friend, as I make with respect to any anti-terrorist legislation: if we talk to communities, explain to them and discuss with them all these various issues, we overcome some of their misconceptions and concerns. As I know he will agree, the enemy is the terrorist; it is not a particular faith, religion or group of people. As long as we explain that the action being taken is proportionate, and as long as we explain why it is being done, I think that we can overcome some of those concerns. I appreciate that he genuinely believes that we run a risk if we do not deal with the matter properly.

Tobias Ellwood: Will the Minister give way?

Vernon Coaker: I think that this should probably be the last time that I give way.

Tobias Ellwood: I am grateful to the Minister but perhaps if we had more than an hour and a half to debate these important matters, he would not be under such pressure to answer questions from Back Benchers. On the issue of terrorism, which is the reason why we are debating the order today, I understand from reports in the press that 40 per cent. of the CIA's intelligence services are working in the United Kingdom, tackling religious extremism. Would he comment on that, because it takes the special relationship that we are supposed to have with the United States to a new level and, more important, it highlights the fact that perhaps we are starting to be part of the problem, rather than the solution?

Vernon Coaker: Let me say, without commenting on the specifics of the amount of intelligence work that is or is not being done, that the work of the intelligence agencies, whether the UK's intelligence agencies or those of other countries with which we are working in co-operation, is essential if we are to tackle the threat that exists in our country and in other countries. I know that the hon. Gentleman would agree. As I said, I do not wish to comment on the specifics.
	Despite improvements in our ability to prosecute or deport individuals who pose a threat to national security, there is a small group of individuals whom we can neither prosecute nor deport. Control orders are intended to protect the public from the risk that those individuals pose. For the past four years, they have been a valuable and targeted tool in our fight against terrorism.
	Each order places a tailored set of obligations upon an individual to help prevent or restrict him from engaging in terrorism-related activity. The orders are not imposed arbitrarily—a judge must agree that they are necessary and proportionate—and they are subject to regular and rigorous review. There are currently 15 control orders in force and only 38 individuals have ever been subject to a control order. However, even if it is a small number, we should still take that seriously.
	We accept that control orders cannot entirely eliminate the risk of an individual's involvement in terrorism-related activity. Indeed, the independent reviewer of the operation of the terrorism legislation, Lord Carlile, notes in his most recent report that he has seen some material showing that a few controlees
	"manage to maintain some contact with terrorist associates and/or groups."
	I believe that has been alluded to previously. However, it is absolutely clear that the obligations in place under control orders make such involvement more difficult. It is for that reason that the Act itself refers to
	"preventing or restricting involvement...in terrorism-related activity."
	The Government believe that control orders should be imposed for as short a time as possible, commensurate with the risk posed. In terms of the individuals currently subject to control orders, seven have been subject to orders for less than a year and only five have been subject to them for more than two years. The High Court has supported our view that a control order can be justified beyond two years. Mr. Justice Collins recently found that if there is evidence that an individual remains a danger, the control order should continue for as long as necessary.

Keith Vaz: Has there been any occasion in the last year when the Home Secretary has had to impose an urgent order?

Vernon Coaker: No, there has not.
	The highest court in the land has upheld the control order regime, reflecting the substantive and rigorous judicial checks and balances in that system. The Law Lords are currently considering what measures are necessary to safeguard the right to a fair trial in control order cases. Their deliberations will, no doubt, take into account relevant jurisprudence, including the House of Lords judgment in 2007, the Court of Appeal judgment of October 2008 and the recent European Court of Human Rights judgment in the case of A and others.
	Our view remains that supported by the Court of Appeal last October: that there is no irreducible minimum level of disclosure that is necessary to ensure that control order review hearings are compatible with a right to a fair trial. The individual is already given as full an explanation as possible of the reasons for the imposition of a control order, subject to legitimate public interest concerns, and each case is determined by an independent judge who has all of the relevant material before them.

Evan Harris: I have listened carefully to what the Minister has said. He will be aware of the danger of selectively choosing court judgments that agree with his position. He has referred to the ECHR judgment in A, which I and the Joint Committee on Human Rights believe leaves no doubt that the gist of the case against the controlee must be given. It will be very hard for the Minister to cite the Court of Appeal judgment that matches his view over what was a very clear judgment from the highest court in respect of human rights.

Vernon Coaker: The hon. Gentleman will know—and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore), the Chair of the JCHR, is sat behind me—that I take human rights issues extremely seriously. I do not just dismiss them; they are important, and in this debate it is necessary for us to consider the interaction of national security versus the infringement of an individual's liberties. I quote the courts because, at the end of the day, that is why we have an independent judiciary. The hon. Gentleman says that I selectively quote, but the House of Lords will determine whether the Court of Appeal view of what the Government were doing is correct, and the ECHR judgment to which he has referred will inform that debate. We await with interest the outcome of that judgment in a few months' time.
	It would be remiss of me not to place on record the Government's thanks to Lord Carlile for yet another thorough report, which will, no doubt, inform today's debate. We will, of course, respond formally in due course, as we also will to the JCHR's most recent report on control orders, and I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon and his Committee for that report and the speed with which it managed to produce it, in time for this debate. Lord Carlile continues to view control orders as
	"a largely effective necessity for a small number of cases".
	He further notes:
	"The control order system as operated currently in its non-derogating form is a justifiable and proportional safety valve for the proper protection of civil society."
	That view is shared by the other two statutory consultees: the intelligence services commissioner and the director general of the Security Service.
	We currently face a threat from terrorism that is sustained and indiscriminate. We need to protect the public while ensuring that our fundamental rights and values are safeguarded. Control orders are by no means the whole answer to dealing with the threat we face, but they are an important part of our overall approach. The risk to the public would increase were the Act not to be renewed. I commend the order to the House.

Crispin Blunt: May I begin by agreeing with the Minister about the nature of the threat and by placing on record our thanks to the men and women of the Security Service and the police, who keep us safe? I also agree with him that nobody wants these orders; well, I am not entirely sure that I speak for the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid), but I think it is widely agreed that nobody wants them.

John Reid: May I place it on the record that I find the orders unsatisfactory? I said that there were so many flaws with them that it was like trying to keep soup in a sieve but, unlike some on the Conservative Benches' I wish to see the regime strengthened in order to protect the public, rather than weakened.

Crispin Blunt: I am grateful for that clarification and for the fact that the right hon. Gentleman thinks the orders are unwelcome—I hope we will be able to provide a satisfactory answer for him.
	This is the fourth time that the Government have come to Parliament to ask for a renewal of authority for these orders, and those of us who were here in the previous Parliament are unlikely to forget the circumstances of the passing of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005, from which these orders spring. The requirement for these measures was exceptional and was a response to an inconvenient judicial ruling striking down part 4 of the Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001. The powers taken under the 2005 Act breached fundamental expectations about habeas corpus and wider liberties that we seek to sustain in Britain for our citizens. Conditions being imposed on Britons on the direction of the Executive without due process are a profound departure from the British tradition and the view that we would like to have of our values. This was an implicit victory for the terrorist, and one that should be reversed at the earliest possible opportunity. It was the desire of the Conservatives to impose a sunset clause on the 2005 Act to force the Government to return to Parliament with a Bill that would be properly considered in all its stages. Legislating in haste normally allows us to repent at leisure, and that was the case with the rush that accompanied the 2005 Act.

William Cash: Does my hon. Friend agree—I very much agree with him that a proper Bill passed at Westminster would be the right way to go about things according to our legal system—that in the light of our commitment to repeal the Human Rights Act 1998, it would be sensible for us also to commit to having our own legislation to deal with this severe problem and to protect habeas corpus and other rights of fair trial, in which the Conservative party believes, as, I hope, we do as a nation?

Crispin Blunt: My hon. Friend is more learned about these matters than I am, but I hope that, once we had repealed the Human Rights Act while remaining subject to the European convention on human rights, our proposal for a Bill of Rights would give the United Kingdom the margin of appreciation that would help to advance his objectives.

John Reid: rose—

Crispin Blunt: If the former Home Secretary will allow me, I shall make some progress.
	The sunset clause was the mechanism that would have held the Government's feet to the fire, to force progress on the other measures that would end the need for this legislation. Control orders replaced detention for foreigners suspected of terrorism who could not be convicted because the evidence could not be admitted in court and could not be deported because of concerns about their fate on their return home. Two principal methods can help to overcome these problems: first, enabling intercept communications to be presented as evidence in court, as in many other jurisdictions; and, secondly, concluding agreements with the countries to which these people should be deported, so that their treatment would meet proper standards and they could be safely deported.
	In those circumstances, the other place accepted the Government's assurances on these and other points, and compromised with annual renewal rather than a sunset clause. Four years later, even the most generous supporter of the Government could hardly describe their progress on these matters as rapid. Sir John Chilcot's review accepted the principle of intercept communications as evidence, but the latest statement by the Home Secretary was highly equivocal and certainly did not convey the impression of an Executive pressing for progress so that the powers we are discussing today, which are an affront to our traditions of liberty, can be disposed of.
	Almost no progress is being made on deportation orders. In a parliamentary answer in July 2008, the Government said that they had achieved agreements with Jordan, Libya and Lebanon in 2005, and with Algeria in 2006—there was nothing in 2007, but they said they were pursuing agreements with a number of other countries. The only progress made since has been an agreement with Ethiopia in December 2008, and although I am sure that Mr. Binyam Mohamed will welcome that news, the overall picture hardly reflects an Executive straining every sinew to escape from the need for control orders.

Jeremy Corbyn: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that we are in danger of making one-off agreements with countries that have not signed up to any other aspect of international law on, or conventions against, torture—and, in some cases, even the human rights convention? Does he not think that we should put pressure on all countries to sign up to international law before making exceptional agreements outside it?

Crispin Blunt: I agree that we need to put pressure on countries to stop torture. Indeed, many of the countries with which the memorandums of understanding exist are party to the convention— [ Interruption. ] No, I understand that not all are. However, MOUs between the UK and other countries are a way of exerting that pressure, and they are a step forward in pointing out to those countries that certain standards are expected and required, not least by the UK.

Evan Harris: I do not know how the hon. Gentleman can say that it puts any pressure on another country to say, "It's ok, we'll do a deal with you even though you are a torturer." Is it his party's view that we can trust a torturer, especially one who has signed up to the UN convention against torture and is therefore breaching that solemn international obligation, to adhere to a one-off agreement on an ad hominem basis on a fingers-crossed contingency? Is that the Conservative party's policy on torture?

Crispin Blunt: The hon. Gentleman's characterisation of the issue is ludicrous and not one for the real world. A one-off agreement on a fingers-crossed basis is not how I would describe a solemn memorandum of understanding between the UK and another other sovereign Government. There would be serious concerns if MOUs on torture were breached, and that would be a disaster for the countries involved.

John Reid: I know of the hon. Gentleman's past commitment to national security and I fully understand that in some sense he has inherited this policy. However, as I have clarified my position, perhaps he will clarify the Opposition's position. What should happen to a person who is reasonably suspected of being likely to commit an act of terrorism, perhaps resulting in thousands of deaths, but for whom we cannot—even with intercept evidence—reach the threshold necessary to charge and convict in court? What is the Conservative policy on such a person? Is it just to let him go free?

Crispin Blunt: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, control orders are an unsatisfactory answer. We have to reduce the need for control orders as much as possible so that we can find means other than the appalling affront to our liberties that control orders represent to achieve our aims. I shall go on to explain how that should be achieved.
	I wish to remind the House of what was said by my party on the last two occasions that these orders were renewed. In 2007, my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), who is now proving such a distinguished chairman of the Home Affairs Committee's counter-terrorism sub-committee, first of all critiqued the effectiveness of the regime, and supported the extension with great reluctance. But he warned the Government that they could not expect our support indefinitely, saying:
	"We have to bring the system to an end and we have to end the injustice".—[ Official Report, 22 February 2007; Vol. 457, c. 443.]
	By 2008, responsibility for these matters was taken by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), who so distinguished himself in the debates on the 2005 and the 2006 Acts that followed. He told the House that the only reason we were not voting against the renewal order in 2008 was that
	"we could use the Counter-Terrorism Bill and the opportunity for debate surrounding it to have some sensible discussions that could lead to the Government having sufficient confidence to decide that this order will not require renewal at all next year."—[ Official Report, 21 February 2008; Vol. 472, c. 569-70.]
	However, he correctly predicted that the Bill would end up in a confrontation over 42 days' pre-charge detention and that there would be no opportunity to have such a sensible discussion.
	Since 2005, we have had two major legislative opportunities to address the control order issue in the Terrorism Act 2006 and the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. In the event, the passing of both Acts was dominated in the public debate by the issue of pre-charge detention. In 2005, this House rejected the Government's efforts to set this limit at 90 days, compromising on an increase from 14 to 28 days, and last year the Government just got their way here on increasing the limit to 42 days, courtesy of support from the Democratic Unionist party—the cost of that decision will no doubt continue to be counted for some time—but then running into a resounding rejection of their proposals in another place. That saw the withdrawal of the proposals, with something less than good grace, by the Home Secretary. The opportunity to address the control order regime was not taken, and so here we are again.
	Since then, we have had the fourth review by the noble and learned Lord Carlile of Berriew, which was so heavily leant on by the Minister in introducing the order. However, the noble Lord has made the point that control orders cannot be used as a permanent disposal for people in these circumstances. In 2008, in his third report, he said:
	"Last year I advised that, as a matter of urgency, a strategy is needed for the ending of the orders in relation to each controlee: to fail to prepare for this now whether on a case-by-case basis or by legislation (if appropriate) would be short-sighted."
	He also said:
	"I advise that there should be a recognised and possibly statutory presumption against a control order being extended beyond two years, save in genuinely exceptional circumstances."

Douglas Hogg: Will my hon. Friend also remind the House that the Liberty report makes it plain that a number of the controlees have been the subject of control orders for three or four years and that some of them were held in Belmarsh before that time? They have been in detention for more than four or five years.

Crispin Blunt: My right hon. and learned Friend naturally anticipates the point that I am about to make. However, let me return briefly to Lord Carlile, because for some reason he did not return to the issue in his fourth report. Perhaps he got fed up with repeating himself and with the Government's not paying any attention. I have established by parliamentary question, answered on 12 February, that two controlees have now been under orders for more than three years and three for between two and three years. That figure could have been as high as nine had six of those subject to orders between April 2006 and February 2007 not absconded. The conclusion is that the Government have not bothered satisfactorily to remedy the situation, despite requests from us and the independent reviewer to do so.
	When I was appointed to this post just over a month ago, I was conscious that, unusually, this was not about the Opposition making a statement but was likely to be a decision about the conduct of Government policy. If the Conservative party opposes these orders, the Government, with their majority, will probably carry the day in this place. However, that will probably not be the case in the other place, which will address the issue of renewal on Thursday. As the Government have to convince both Houses and as these powers expire on 11 March, they would have to have an alternative monitoring scheme in place for the 15 individuals within 40 days. Is an operational plan in place in case Parliament declines the Government's request for renewal? Any alternative plan would presumably involve appropriate levels of surveillance, helped by the fact that much of it will not have to be covert as the target will anticipate that his activities will be monitored.
	Can we assume that not all the measures have to be new? Presumably there is already additional surveillance of the individuals in addition to the control order measures, not least because of the high proportion of absconders. We know that comprehensive surveillance is expensive and human resource intensive, and that it will require an appropriate plan for each individual. To achieve equivalence with a control order regime, however, foolproof surveillance is not the standard as a fifth of those subject to control orders have absconded.
	The control order regime is also expensive. We have some idea of the cost from the answer given to my question yesterday. The cost of elements of the control order regime that I identified was more than £3 million without the cost of the supervision arrangements or the costs of the control order review group. The current arrangement is costing well over £200,000 a year per controlee.
	Control orders should be assessed in the context of the whole counter-terrorism strategy, as well as in the context of the financial cost. I believe that they do damage to the "prevent" element of the strategy because of the message of oppression that they impart to those vulnerable to being suborned into violence against our state, its institutions and people. Have the Government conducted an impact assessment of the control order regime on vulnerable communities? The Minister's answer to the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) suggested that their assessment is based more on talks with the communities, but I think that something rather more rigorous is required.
	Control orders also damage our wider sense of security because of the exceptional measures that are viewed by the Government as necessary. They do damage to the basic notion of British liberty and the values we seek to defend. As for the benefits, they are a temporary patch on a hole in our defences that has been created because we have not yet had the wit to find a way to convict or deport people we believe to be associated with terrorism. If we were not so close to a general election, I would not hesitate to recommend to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we vote against these measures and rip this patch off because, in isolation, the system of control orders is defective.
	Such a recommendation would come in spite of the natural wish of a patriotic party in opposition to give the Government the benefit of the doubt when they claim that national security at stake. The difficulty that we face is that, in one disreputable episode after another, the Government have forfeited any benefit of the doubt on their most sacred responsibility, which is to keep the nation safe. They do not need to take that from me, as the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) expressed the sentiment eloquently last week, following the statement on the non-release of Cabinet minutes relating to the decision on the Iraq war.
	I have to say that I share the hon. Gentleman's sentiments. Coming to the view that we should not obstruct the renewal of the measures today is not about giving this exhausted and discredited Administration the benefit of the doubt, but about finding the most appropriate way to prepare for the likely exercise of these responsibilities by June next year.
	I do not know the result of the next election. It would be both impertinent and unwise to presume on the electorate, but I think they would expect an aspirant Administration preparing to take on responsibility for counter-terrorism and security policies to treat the prospect with the utmost seriousness. Therefore, my analysis is based on the assumption that we will be faced with those responsibilities by June next year.
	Our counter-terrorism legislation is at best a bureaucratic mess, and at worst has powers that make the situation worse. Let us consider just how we have arrived at this point: the Terrorism Act 2000 was followed by the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Act 2001, which was implemented in a hurry after 9/11. Further legislation in 2003 made amendments to the 2000 Act, while the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 was required after the 2001 Act was found to be inconsistent with the Human Rights Act 1998. Then the Terrorism Act 2006 was implemented in the post-7/7 environment, and after that came the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. Throw in two Northern Ireland Acts for good measure and we have as confusing a pot pourri as any lawyer could desire. It has presented us with the ridiculous juxtaposition of Abu Qatada receiving a deportation order one day, and compensation the next. The warning about the opportunity being created issued by my hon. and learned Friend the shadow Justice Secretary has been fully justified.
	The case for consolidation is overwhelming, and it was made by a Labour Home Secretary more than three years ago. On 2 February 2006, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke) said that he intended to
	"plan for the development of a draft Bill that takes into account all the work that I have laid out to be published in the first half of 2007 for pre-legislative scrutiny."—[ Official Report, 2 February 2006; Vol. 442, c. 479.]
	The 2008 Act dealt with little of the work that he referred to. No progress was made on intercept as evidence, and no change arose from the review of the operation of control order. Therefore, the overwhelming case is not only for consolidation but for a full review of the powers that the state has taken.
	The review and consolidation should be comprehensive and not piecemeal. The fact that we are probably within touching distance of being able to complete the review with the benefit of the advice available to a Government has decided me in favour of not removing the patch on the hole in our counter-terrorism strategy that control orders represent. On those grounds, I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends not to vote against these orders today, but I want to make it clear to the House that the consolidation and review of counter-terrorism legislation to be carried out by the probable next Administration will begin from the position that we will replace the present control order system. We will also seek to end the abuse of stop-and-search powers under terrorism legislation for non-terrorist-related incidents, and to address controversial offences relating to the distribution of literature and glorification.
	Perhaps most important of all, we will allow intercept to be used as evidence in our courts. Achieving that goal will enable us to deliver to public justice more of the people who seek to murder in pursuit of authoritarian theological and political goals in our open society. Such public justice should help to shake any complacency out of communities where our citizens are under direct threat of being suborned.

Douglas Hogg: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Crispin Blunt: I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend will forgive me, but there is still an hour for other people to get in.
	In office, if we are so trusted, we will seek to send the message that we understand the values that we are seeking to defend from those who would violently challenge them outside the democratic sphere, and we will use our powers intelligently to find the right balance for an open, liberal democracy engaged in that battle.
	This is a task to be carried out coherently, comprehensively and seriously, and that is what the Conservative party pledges to undertake. Too many of the emblematic battles between us on these issues have related to attempts to create party political positioning rather than the most effective defence of our democratic institutions and citizens. The result has been ineffective authoritarianism that has undermined our effectiveness and credibility. It is time for that to change.

Keith Vaz: It is always a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), who spoke with such passion and gave such a careful critique of the control order policy that I thought he would announce that the Opposition would vote against the Government. He certainly had the support of one or two Labour Members—not me. I was surprised that he did not announce that.
	The hon. Gentleman may not prejudge the electorate, but he informs us that a general election is imminent, then tells us that it is likely to be in June next year. I should have thought that if the Conservatives really were against control orders, they would vote against them, rather than make an argument against them then vote in favour of them. I am not sure what the Liberal Democrat position will be tonight, but I would hate to be in a debate where everyone said how awful control orders are, including the former Home Secretary who introduced them, who said that he did so reluctantly, and for the whole House then to vote for them.
	We meet on a day on which we are very conscious of the serious threat of terrorism, because of the events that occurred in Pakistan today, where cricketers on their way to a pre-arranged match were subjected to a terrible terrorist attack. Thank goodness none of them was killed, but others were killed in that attack, which appeared to be carefully constructed and prepared. Of course, that happened thousands of miles away, but the nature of global terrorism is that it can occur anywhere.
	That is why many of us, even though we have reservations—I have reservations about the continuation of the orders—give the Government the benefit of the doubt, and believe that when they come to the House and ask for renewal, they do so in a genuine way, with the evidence and the information before them. Obviously, they cannot put all that information before the House, but we accept the points that they make.

Edward Leigh: The most devastating intervention in the debate so far has been the right hon. Gentleman's, when he asked how many orders had been imposed in an emergency. The answer was none. Surely if the orders meant anything, more of them—or indeed some—would have been imposed. Is this not government by fig leaf? This is a totally artificial debate. The orders are not being used.

Keith Vaz: The hon. Gentleman is right. It is an artificial debate when the Opposition are dead against everything that the Government intend to do but will vote for the order. Will the hon. Gentleman vote for the order today, along with other Conservative Members? Of course there is surrealism about the debate.

Jeremy Corbyn: My right hon. Friend will recall the many debates that used to be held about the continuation of the prevention of terrorism Acts, which were routinely renewed every six months, in which everybody said that they were against it and deeply reluctant, but went ahead and did it nevertheless. Eventually the error of their ways was seen and there was a different approach, a different attitude and a different solution in Northern Ireland. Can we not think again about the danger of taking away people's liberties routinely by a simple vote in the House—or on some occasions by no vote in the House?

Keith Vaz: Yes, we should. I remember that my hon. Friend always voted against, so for that purpose he was on the side of the angels. Today a motion for renewal is before the House. The Government say that they have to renew, for the reasons that they give. They say that they have no alternative, they cannot go through due process and they have to use such orders. The Opposition say that they are against the Government but, apart from the Liberal Democrats, everyone will vote in favour.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: I am interested in the example that my right hon. Friend gave about the atrocity that took place in the past 48 hours against Sri Lankan cricketers. That happened in a country that not only has access to control orders, but has access to regular torture of suspects. I should have thought that if ever there was an example of repressive measures not controlling terrorism, it was that one.

Keith Vaz: I do not know which group was responsible for that terrorist attack, but I was using it as an example of the fact that that was happening all over the world and could happen here. We have to guard against the dangers of terrorism. It is a very serious matter, and I am sure that this Minister and this Government take it very seriously indeed.
	I have just three or four points to make, one of which the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) has reminded me about. It is the fact that the Home Secretary has not had to use the powers in the legislation to impose an urgent order. I wonder whether that is because things are getting better, so there is no need for the Home Secretary to use those powers. The powers are reviewable by the courts within seven days of the order being imposed. When the Minister winds up the debate, perhaps he will explain whether what I have referred to is a sign that matters are improving in the fight against terrorism.

Douglas Hogg: Will the right hon. Gentleman remind the House that in respect of non-derogating orders the power of review does not relate to a review of the merits? It is simply an assessment, on judicial review grounds, as to whether the order was fatally flawed.

Keith Vaz: That is a correct analysis of what the courts can do in those circumstances.
	I have three quick points to make. The first was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn), and it relates to the effect on the community. We do not know who the people are, but as I have said in many debates on counter-terrorism, I am concerned about the impact of legislation in this field especially on the south Asian and Muslim communities. When the Government ask for orders such as this to be renewed, they need to come before the House and give us examples of community engagement. I am thinking of examples of how they have reassured the community that the order is about a very tiny proportion of the community, that very few people engage in acts of terrorism, and that the order should not be seen as an attack on the community as a whole. The order disproportionately affects members of the Muslim community; I would imagine that either all 15, or 14 of the 15 people involved—I do not know who they are—are members of the Muslim faith. If the Minister has the information, perhaps he will put it before the House.
	I agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Frank Dobson), my hon. Friend the Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) and the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) have said: why is there a delay in accepting intercept evidence in court proceedings? We should go through the due process about which the hon. Member for Stone (Mr. Cash) spoke. We would all like people to be brought before the courts through due process, which is how these cases should always be dealt with. There should be proper legal representation, with the person being informed in advance of the case against them so that they can argue their case and gather their evidence. The way to ensure that is to accept that intercept evidence should be part of court proceedings. The Home Affairs Committee, some distinguished members of which I see here today, accepted that unanimously, and the Government should accept it.

Patrick Mercer: Can the right hon. Gentleman understand why the important process of allowing intercept evidence to be heard in court has taken so long? For the past two or three years, he and I have been discussing the issue. I was a practitioner of this particular use of intercept at least two decades ago, and the issue seems to have been in the public domain for absolutely ages. Can the right hon. Gentleman spread any light on or understanding about what is delaying the Government?

Keith Vaz: I cannot, but the hon. Gentleman has a distinguished record of association with the intelligence services because of his great knowledge on these matters. Perhaps he has the answer; I do not.

John Reid: Perhaps I can help both the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester, East (Keith Vaz). This is not the only reason, but one of the reasons why there has been such prolonged consideration of the matter is that the people in our intelligence services, who have to engage in the fight against terrorism day in and day out, have warned that there would be a huge diminution in their capacity to counter terrorism if we introduced intercept evidence willy-nilly into British courts.  [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Newark may not accept that, but I find it disturbing how the advice of the people at the front line of this fight is constantly thrown aside as if it did not matter.

Keith Vaz: I say to the right hon. Gentleman—[Hon. Members: "Friend!"] I should say "my right hon. Friend"—a close, personal friend. [Hon. Members: "Comrade!"] No, I think that comrades have been abolished. I say to my right hon. Friend that we take what the security services say very seriously. I am not saying that they are responsible; all I am saying is that this has been in the public domain, as the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) said, and I think that the Government should just get on with it. With the necessary safeguards, it could be of great use to us and allow orders of this kind to be put to one side as we go through due process.
	My final point concerns the number of people who abscond. It is slightly embarrassing for the Government to have to renew these orders and tell us about the numbers on control orders who have absconded, bearing in mind how much money is spent on keeping them where they are. We need explanations, perhaps not on the detail of each case, but of why the figure is so high. On the figures that I have, of the 15 people held, seven have absconded. If I am wrong, perhaps the Minister can correct me; anyway, it is a high proportion. The former shadow Home Secretary said that it was a fifth, but I was told that it was half.  [ Interruption. ] Seven out of 38; well, that is still a very high figure.

Vernon Coaker: Let me put this on the record. It is seven out of 38, which is the figure that was mentioned, but I repeat that no one has absconded since January 2007.

Keith Vaz: We are very pleased with that announcement— not that people have absconded but that no one has done so since January 2007. We are keen to know what has happened to those who have absconded because, given that they are under such scrutiny, we wonder why it happened and what went wrong.

John Reid: It is my job to be helpful today, Mr. Deputy Speaker. One of the reasons, of course, is that people are not under surveillance 24 hours a day, because—the Minister cannot criticise the courts, but let me criticise them—when we wanted 24-hour surveillance to stop them absconding, the courts said that we could not have that and that people had to have at least eight or 10 hours without surveillance. They had to have a "shift" as a suspected terrorist, and not unsurprisingly, they absconded.

David Davis: rose—

Keith Vaz: I will not give way any more; I am sorry to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen, but there is very little time. We should not go any further down this path, because that will open up a whole new debate. However, an awful lot of people have absconded given that, as the hon. Member for Reigate said, it cost £3 million to get the whole system working.
	I hope that next time Ministers come before the House to discuss counter-terrorism issues they will be able to provide a better explanation of what is happening so that the House can be better informed. With those caveats, I will, reluctantly, support the Government, but they need to do much more work next time if they hope to get this order through.

Christopher Huhne: I, too, thank Lord Carlile of Berriew for publishing his report in good time for this year's renewal debate. I also thank the Joint Committee on Human Rights for making its views known in a timely fashion.
	My argument is that control orders are not an appropriate instrument for a free society under the rule of law. They are unfair; they breach key rights to a fair hearing; and they get perilously close to reversing a fundamental principle of our criminal justice system, which is that we are innocent until we are proven guilty. Moreover, they are ineffective. We have heard that seven of the 38 people who have been made subject to control orders have absconded. The guilty are more likely to abscond, so the innocent are more likely to be detained. Criminal trials and custodial sentences would be a far more effective way of proceeding and protecting the public.
	Let me start with the issue of fairness. These orders involve house arrest and curfew. According to Lord Carlile's report, the average curfew was 13 hours, up from 10 hours in 2007, and the longest was 16 hours. The right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid), who is no longer in his place, asked whether other means could be used. The Government could have used control orders in going before a judge to derogate from the European convention on human rights—they have not done so. Effectively, we have a system of indefinite house arrest.

David Davis: I am sorry that the ex-Home Secretary is not here, because he did not give the House exactly accurate information when he spoke before. He said that the courts prevented us from keeping the people in question under surveillance 24 hours a day. That is not true, because keeping them constrained 24 hours a day is not the same as keeping them under surveillance.

Christopher Huhne: I am happy to take the point of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis); he is absolutely correct.
	Control orders have a serious impact on people and their families. In one case, as we heard, a person who has been on a control order throughout this regime was previously detained in Belmarsh—detention, without a fair, evidentiary standard, of effectively nigh-on eight years.

Douglas Hogg: It is worse than that. Not only is there not a sufficient evidential basis, but there is no proper appeal.

Christopher Huhne: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for that point. He is absolutely right: the evidentiary standard is particularly low and there is no appeal. It is particularly low because it involves merely a reasonable suspicion on the part of the Home Secretary, which is broadly the evidentiary basis that the Director of Public Prosecutions requires to charge someone with counter-terrorism offences.
	My party argues that control orders breach the right to a fair hearing. A person does not know what they are suspected of. They have a limited ability to challenge and defend themselves, and the Government have said that
	"introducing a requirement always to provide a summary is not appropriate".—[ Official Report, House of Lords, 21 October 2008; Vol. 704, c. 1085.]
	This is surely a truly Kafkaesque situation, in which someone is held without even knowing the gist of the suspicions held against them. That will no doubt be one of the key factors in the case going to the Law Lords, which has been reported this week.
	Furthermore, there is a reliance on secret intelligence, which, by definition, may be all the less reliable for being secret, precisely because sources are not open to scrutiny, cross-examination or challenge. For all we know, intelligence may have been gained through torture around the world; as we know from the recent case of Binyam Mohamed, we unfortunately cannot rule that out.
	Intelligence can be wrong—very wrong. Mistaken identity is a fairly common problem. The most famous example is, of course, Jean Charles de Menezes, but another is that of Lotfi Raissi, the Algerian pilot whose life was ruined by intelligence-fuelled suspicions that ultimately proved to be entirely groundless. The grand chamber of the European Court of Human Rights in A  v. the United Kingdom is the highest court to have looked at these matters, and it states very clearly that its recent decision—I quote the Joint Committee on Human Rights—
	"leaves no room for doubt that basic fairness requires that at the very least the controlled person be provided with the gist of the closed material which supports the allegations made against them".
	A second issue is the sheer interminability of these orders. There are no time limits and control orders can last for long periods. Two current cases have gone on for more than three years. Effectively, that is indefinite detention. Is that really acceptable as part of our criminal justice system?
	Moreover, there is a legal world within a legal world. If someone breaches their control order, they can be prosecuted and convicted. As Lord Carlile points out, three of the current 15 people affected face trials soon for breaching the terms of their orders. Although there is no evidence to bring against them in a court of law on any substantive matter, they have been made subject to a control order, and if they breach it, that becomes a criminal offence. Although they cannot face substantive charges, that is surely Orwellian.
	The passage of time is one reason control orders should not be continued. The danger is that the longer someone is held, the greater is the chance that they are entirely innocent.

Jeremy Corbyn: The hon. Gentleman will have heard my intervention on the Minister. What is the hon. Gentleman's personal assessment of the effect on community relations of the continuation of the control orders and the system behind them?

Christopher Huhne: I have no doubt that the effect in communities that have suffered from people being held under control orders is a feeling of great injustice, or that that feeling fuels resentment and becomes a recruiting sergeant for people to join a fight that we do not want to exist.
	We should learn the lesson from the cases of those held for the maximum period of detention without charge for terrorism offences. The 42 days debate made it clear that half of those held for nearly the maximum period—three people—were released without charge and without further surveillance or suspicion. It is very hard to prove a negative, which is why we insist in the British criminal justice system that someone is innocent until proven guilty. We heard nothing from the Minister today to suggest that there is any exit strategy from control orders, yet the danger of the courts holding against a prolonged control order has to be serious. At the very least, as the JCHR has proposed, there should be a statutory presumption against a control order lasting beyond two years.
	Another reason for ending the system is that prosecutions are surely better than control orders, which have clear holes, as we have seen from the number of people absconding. Let us proceed instead to fair trials. The Minister said that there is gap between letting out someone who is entirely innocent and proceeding to a fair trial, but I urge the House to consider the fact that several developments have closed that gap substantially since control orders were introduced. The Minister has not addressed any of those developments. As has been said, the fact that there have been no urgent orders in the past year tends to reinforce the argument.

William Cash: I am glad to hear the hon. Gentleman talk about fair trials and due process. He may know that that is exactly what my Prevention of Terrorism (No. 2) Bill a couple of years ago would have provided for. On control orders, the problem is the Human Rights Act 1998 and all that goes with it. Does he agree that it would be far better for us to legislate here in Westminster, on our own terms, and override that Act so that we can produce the results that he calls for?

Christopher Huhne: I am afraid that I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman at all. His view of the Human Rights Act is extremely jaundiced and discoloured. It completely ignores the history of the Act and of its predecessor and foundation stone, the European convention on human rights, which was drafted by British and American lawyers precisely to put in place a bulwark for our freedoms. Frankly, that has stood the test of time and been terribly important. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is completely misguided on the matter.
	I return to the developments that have made it easier to close the gap. First, there has been an enormous increase in the number of terrorism offences, under both the Terrorism Act 2006 and the Counter-Terrorism Act 2008. One answer to the right hon. Member for Airdrie and Shotts, who is no longer in his place, is that there is a power to proceed with a prosecution for acts preparatory to terrorism. Taking into account the threshold test and the flexibility that exists, it seems to me that we ought to be able to use proper, fair trials in such cases much more than we do. As Lord Carlile pointed out, that
	"could increase the potential for the normal criminal process to be used against terrorism suspects".
	There is the flexibility of the threshold test for prosecution, which has the same standard of proof as control orders. If the charge is sufficiently serious, there is hardly any difficulty in persuading a judge of the need for the accused to be remanded in custody.
	Other, obvious changes would make a conviction easier to secure. In the short debate, we have already dealt extensively with intercept evidence. I merely point out that in Australia and the United States, prosecutors regard it as extraordinary that we do not use intercept evidence. They do not understand how we manage to bring successful prosecutions without it, not only in terrorism cases, but in those involving organised crime.

David Davis: When I spoke to the head of counter-terrorism at the Department of Justice in the United States, he said that every organised crime prosecution and the vast majority—all bar one or two—of the terrorism prosecutions there require intercept evidence. He made the point that, if intercept strategy is designed to deliver evidence, a lot of evidence is obtained. That clearly does not happen currently in the UK.

Christopher Huhne: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman. Contrary to the point that the Minister made in his speech, Lord Carlile states in his report that
	"the use of intercept evidence in a criminal court possibly has the potential for reducing the number of control orders".
	It is not enough to say that there are some control orders with which we might not be able to proceed. Doubtless, some people who are subject to control orders are entirely innocent. However, it is simply not good enough to say that, because we could not proceed with some control orders using intercept evidence, we should not introduce it or that it could not be used in other cases. Given that, typically, more than 2,000 warrants for interception are issued each year, it would be surprising if that were not the case.
	We must remember the example that we set. Any tin-pot dictator is free to argue that the powers that he uses to buttress his regime are simply those that are in force in Britain, the mother of democracies and the mother of Parliaments. Ian Macdonald QC resigned as a special advocate for reasons of conscience, describing the control order policy as
	"an odious blot on our legal landscape".
	If control order-like powers are still needed for a few individuals, they must be granted by a judge, time limited, subject to a higher standard of proof than mere reasonable suspicion, and subject to regular and thorough assessments of the possibility of prosecution. Securing convictions or letting the innocent go free should be the key goals.
	Ministers said when they introduced the powers that they were only temporary. Surely after four years, the time has come for the House to hold them to their word. We will vote against the order.

Robert Marshall-Andrews: Most hon. Members remember that the legislation was passed immediately before the last general election. Many of us regard that as at least one reason for the Labour party's sustaining a seismic loss in its popular vote in the months that followed.
	The Government pray in aid the independence of the judiciary for sustaining the legislation, claiming that we can pass such legislation safely because the judiciary scrutinise and, if necessary, control it. That is an undesirable state of affairs. It is undesirable that the House should be perceived as persistently passing legislation that is contrary and abhorrent to our standards and civil liberties, and as pressing up against a judiciary that is there permanently to control it. I must say to the Minister that that is not part of the natural or normal history of this country. In many cases, the House has been the guardian of civil liberty and passed legislation to curb an overactive judiciary. Indeed, that characterised the relationship and balance of power between the two. It is a sad day when the Government rely on the judiciary as an alibi for introducing such legislation, which has not been on the statute book for 400 years. The order is not the only example, but it is an especially bad one.
	My second point, which is a pragmatic one, is that it is said that there is a raft of cases, the number of which is apparently small—15 in all—where the suspected offence or potential offences are so heinous that the fact that we cannot gather enough evidence to get past the threshold test of reasonable belief in guilt means that, in those circumstances, there is no option. Bringing to bear what experience I have in the criminal courts, I do not accept that. I do not believe for one moment that a raft of such cases exists. From what I can bring to bear, I have no experience, either in terrorism cases or outside them, where, if the offences are sufficiently serious and there is evidence on which a raft of people can come to the conclusion that there is a real danger of serious crime, those who are responsible for the investigation of crime will not succeed in obtaining evidence that can be placed before a jury. What is being done is not being done for judicial reasons; it is being done for convenience, and that is all. This House should scrutinise it and reject it.
	My third point is that this measure is part of what is rapidly becoming a compendious indictment against us, America and other democratic states, for allowing such a state of affairs to happen. Of course, control orders are not unlawful rendition and in many ways they do not fall into the same category, in terms of either their lawfulness or their consequences. Nor are control orders in the same category as what the past 48 hours have revealed to be a travelogue of consistent torture, carried out by the CIA and now deliberately erased from its records. Of course control orders are not as important as that. But to a radicalised and radicalising world outside those democracies, they form part of a compendious indictment that we in these great democracies are prepared to abrogate the rule of law in certain circumstances, which are obviously aimed at those radicalising people in the Muslim world, and to suspend our way of life and our democracy in order to meet them.
	For those three reasons—one pragmatic, one historical, and all, I hope, principled—if there is a vote at the end of this debate, I shall vote against the Government with a completely clear conscience.

Douglas Hogg: In view of the shortness of this debate, I intend to be much briefer than I would be otherwise. It is a great pleasure to follow the hon. and learned Member for Medway (Mr. Marshall-Andrews) and I shall be in the same Lobby as him this evening.
	Let me begin by stressing how draconian such orders can be. It is perhaps worth reminding the House of Mr. Justice Sullivan's comments in the case of the Home Secretary  v. J.J. He described and outlined the nature of such orders thus:
	"Each respondent is required to remain within his 'residence' at all times, save for...six hours,"
	although that is not quite right now. Respondents were held in one-bedroom flats. They were not allowed to receive visitors other than those approved in advance by the Home Secretary. The residences were subject to spot checks by the police. The respondents were allowed out only within carefully defined areas, not including, for the most part, where they happened to live in the past.
	For the most part, respondents were not allowed to meet by prearrangement any person not approved by the Home Secretary. They were required to wear tags. They were required to notify the monitoring authority before they left and when they returned. They were not allowed to have any communication equipment other than monitored fixed lines. The practical effect, of course, was that they could not work. It is therefore perhaps not surprising that Lord Bingham said that the control order system is a form of house arrest, but without the benefit of association with fellow prisoners. It is very bad indeed.
	My next point deals only with non-derogating orders. The evidence on which such orders can be made falls far short of the evidence required to sustain a criminal conviction. All that is required is reasonable grounds for suspecting that a person has been involved, or is involved, in a terrorist organisation, and a belief that the order is necessary.
	My third point is that the judicial supervision involved in all this is very slight. In the case of non-derogating orders, the court will review on judicial review principles only whether the order is flawed. That is not a review on the merits; it simply asks whether the making of the order was flawed. It is true that, in the case of the derogating orders, there will be a review on the merits, but using the relatively low standard of the balance of probabilities, so the judicial intervention is slight.
	I shall take up a point that was raised earlier, before I rapidly conclude. The judicial process involved is inherently flawed because the relevant material—or at least most of it—is not disclosed to the controlee. The controlee has a special advocate, but that advocate is unable to communicate to the controlee what he has been told of the intelligence, and thus cannot obtain proper instructions or learn what the controlee wishes to say on the matter.
	I want to make two final points before I sit down. There is very little independent oversight of this process. It is true that the Minister must report quarterly to the House, and that we have the benefit of the independent reviewer, the noble and learned Lord Carlile. We also occasionally have reported decisions of the superior courts, but it is very difficult for the House, the public or the press to know whether what we are doing is really justified or proportionate, and whether it is being done in way that is right, proper and justified. We just do not know, and that is profoundly unsatisfactory.
	Lastly, because these powers are in existence, the momentum for seeking alternatives is very much less. It is remarkable, given that Sir John Chilcot reported on intercept evidence as long ago as February 2008, that we have still made no serious progress on that. I suspect that, because these powers exist, many people who could be prosecuted are not being prosecuted, because it is so much easier for the Home Secretary to make a control order.
	Had more time been available, I would have drawn the House's attention to a number of suggestions that I have for improving these orders, if we must have them. I am not going to do that today, however, because other right hon. and hon. Members wish to speak. I am going to vote against the control orders, because they are unacceptable in a free and open society. We condemn indefinite Executive detention wherever we see it—think of the criticisms that we make of the Government of Israel—yet, in truth, we are doing exactly the same thing. We should not be doing so.

Andrew Dismore: I rise to speak to my Committee's report—the 14th to be published in this Parliament on counter-terrorism policy. Like every other report, we begin by agreeing with the Government on the importance of the obligations imposed on them by human rights law to take effective steps to protect the public from the real threat of terrorism. However, we have consistently raised a number of human rights concerns about the legislation on control orders. Those concerns include:
	"The lack of opportunity for proper parliamentary scrutiny",
	"The severe extent of the obligations imposed, which have appeared to us to be so restrictive as to amount to the deprivation of liberty",
	as well as the lack of due process, particularly
	"the lack of opportunity to challenge closed material".
	They also include:
	"The seriousness or otherwise of the Government's commitment to prosecution",
	and the lack of an exit strategy.
	The only thing that we welcome is the fact that we got the reviewer's report a month in advance of this debate, following our recommendation, which had been repeated on many occasions, that we should be allowed time to give proper consideration to it.
	The concluding observations of the United Nations Human Rights Committee on the UK's compliance with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights included a recommendation that the Government should ensure that the judicial process for challenging the imposition of a control order complies with the principle of equality of arms, which it clearly does not.
	Mention has been made of the ECHR judgment in the Grand Chamber of 19 February. That concerned Belmarsh detainees, but the issues in that case are exactly the same as those affecting control orders. The Court said that special advocates could not perform their function of safeguarding the detainee's interests during closed hearings in any useful way unless the detainee was provided with sufficient information about the allegations against him. We also drew attention to the report of the Eminent Jurists Panel on Terrorism, Counter-terrorism and Human Rights, published on 17 February, which expresses concern about a "parallel legal system" developing, so undermining the rule of law.
	The orders are punitive. We have seen curfews of up to 16 hours and, on average, they have gone up on from running for 10 hours last year to 13 hours in this report. Lord Brown, who ruled on this, has been misquoted. His actual view, as reported, was:
	"It may be... that 16 hours it is too long. I would, however, leave it to the Strasbourg Court to decide upon that".
	The Government have interpreted that as if he was saying that 16 hours is the benchmark, but that is not what Lord Brown said at all.
	I have many concerns about the issue of due process. We produced a whole series of recommendations when we debated the Counter-Terrorism Bill in the last Session, but, unfortunately, the Government did not accept any of them. I nevertheless urge the Government to consider again at least providing a statement of at least the gist of any closed material in accordance with the decision of the European Court—and, I hope, the forthcoming decision of the House of Lords—as that is the key issue in the case being tried today. The Minister's predecessor offered to meet the special advocates who planned to describe to him the inherent potential unfairness in the regime, but unfortunately, that Minister did not keep his promise, as he was shifted to another position before, I suspect, he had the opportunity to do so. I hope that the current Minister will undertake to keep that promise.

Vernon Coaker: Let me assure my hon. Friend that I will ensure that that happens.

Andrew Dismore: I am grateful to the Minister for repeating that commitment, as the current system is reminiscent of the infamous Henry VIII Star Chamber court: people are not told the case against them; they are not allowed their own choice of lawyer to defend them; the lawyer does not know the case he has to defend; and, in the end, people are not even provided with the reasons for the decision to subject them to a control order. As we now know from the Belmarsh cases and others, a control order can mean seven years, which, with proper remission taken into account, is equivalent to a 14-year prison sentence, yet not many terrorism offences carry that weight of penalty. We should bear that in mind.
	Much has been said about intercept. It is a year since the Chilcot inquiry reported and the Prime Minister has given an undertaking to accept the report in principle, so perhaps the Minister will explain why we have as yet seen no outcomes.
	Lord Carlile spoke about the exit strategy last year and this year repeated what he had said, but we have no exit strategy. Our Committee recommended, following on from Lord Carlile, that no control order should be continued beyond two years, save in exceptional circumstances. In many cases, these people are no longer a threat. Realistically, what terrorist organisation is going to keep on its books someone who has been in detention of one form or another and subject to scrutiny for that period?
	If the President of America is going to close Guantanamo Bay, surely we should adopt the same approach in respect of control orders. We must have an alternative—a human rights-compliant alternative. That has been the recommendation of my Committee time and again as a means of dealing with those people of whom we have such fears.

David Davis: If we looked at this issue solely from the point of view of effectiveness against terrorism, it would fail the test. It is no good solving a single problem if that solution creates 100 further problems. A number of hon. Members have made the point that this works to exacerbate radicalisation.
	It is worth considering the size of the problem. When Lady Manningham-Buller made her last speech on the matter, she said there were 1,600 radicals in the country; one year later, Jonathan Evans, then head of MI5, said it was more than 2,000—an enormous number and it is growing at 25 per cent. a year. The reason for that is the perceived injustice by the Muslim community of a number of measures—42 days' detention, 90 days' detention and these control orders. The simple fact is, as the Liberal spokesman said and as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) reiterated, that this is a Kafkaesque process in which people are given almost no knowledge of the evidence and very little knowledge of the accusation.
	The simple fact is that owing to the lack of oversight, injustice is almost certainly common. We know too of at least one instance in which MI5 presented the same evidence to support opposing conclusions in two successive hearings of the Special Immigration Appeals Commission. That was discovered only because the same defence lawyer was representing two different defendants. As a result, both judgments were overturned, and some coruscating comments were made by Lord Justice Newman at the time.

Gary Streeter: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

David Davis: Very briefly.

Gary Streeter: Has my right hon. Friend observed that, according to page 5 of Lord Carlile's excellent report, the control orders of six individuals were revoked because—this is in brackets—
	"the assessment of the necessity of the control order changed"?
	Presumably those individuals were no longer deemed a threat. Does my right hon. Friend think that that means that they were reformed terrorists, or that the control orders should not have been issued in the first place?

David Davis: That, of course, is the risk, and it brings us to the issue of the size of the problem. When this piece of law was put in place, we were told by the then Prime Minister, Tony Blair, that "hundreds" of people would be subject to control orders. And what do we find? There is a maximum of 15 at any one point in time.

Vernon Coaker: rose—

David Davis: I will give way to the Minister if he wishes to challenge me on that point.

Vernon Coaker: I do not want to challenge the right hon. Gentleman on that point, but I should have thought that the fact that there is a limited number of control orders shows that the Government are trying to act in a necessary and proportionate way.

David Davis: What it shows, frankly, is that information given to the House at the time when the control order legislation was passed was simply not true. Presumably the Minister is not trying to tell me that something else has happened to those hundreds of people. They certainly have not been prosecuted or arrested.
	The other issue that the Minister batted aside when I put it to him was the number who had escaped. If these people really pose an ever-present threat to the safety of the public, seven escapees—presumably the most dangerous, the most cunning, the most determined to get away—would be a matter of concern. When asked about that, the Minister's predecessor, the right hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty), said that they were not a significant threat to the country after they had escaped.
	Much of this is about resources. Much of it is about the willingness to introduce a surveillance mechanism. We all understand that surveillance is very expensive, because it involves a vast number of people. The trouble is that control orders without it do not work. That is the point about the seven escapees. Control orders with surveillance, however, save no money, so what is the point? There is little point in this legislation other than machismo.
	Let me make one simple final point. It is clear from all the arguments that we have had about intercept evidence that an intercept strategy would solve the problem caused by the majority of 15 or so individuals with whom we must deal in any given year. It would reduce that total to a tiny number, and surveillance would solve the remaining problem.
	This is an unnecessary piece of law, and a bad piece of law. It does huge damage to the Government's "prevent strategy", and I suspect that, if anything, it makes the threat from terrorism worse.

Jeremy Corbyn: I will be brief, because there is very little time.
	We have been over the Prevention of Terrorism Act in the past. We have ritually renewed it every six months. Eventually, people began to realise that there must be some other way of doing things. As a result of post-9/11 syndrome, we passed various pieces of draconian legislation. We passed legislation allowing control orders to be imposed, and the effect has been to damage community relations, to make people less rather than more co-operative with the police and everyone else, and to take away the liberties of citizens of this country. Surely it is time for this House of Parliament to stand up and defend liberties rather than taking them away, and to support the rule of law rather than undermining the decent judicial process that ought to be the tradition of this country.
	 One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the motion, the Deputy Speaker put the Question (Standing Order No. 16(1)).

The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 89.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That the draft Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (Continuance in force of sections 1 to 9) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 3 February, be approved.

Corporation Tax Bill

[Relevant documents: The First Report of the Joint Committee on Tax Law Rewrite Bills, Session 2008-09, Corporation Tax Bill, HC 160.]
	 Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 60(8)),
	That the Committee of the whole House be discharged from considering the Bill.— (Mr. Timms.)
	 Question agreed to.
	 Third Reading

Stephen Timms: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I am very pleased to open this Third Reading debate on the Corporation Tax Bill, which rewrites provisions used by companies in computing their income as well as some basic provisions, including the charge to tax. The Bill has been produced by Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs tax law rewrite project, and its aim is to make the legislation clearer and easier to understand. It is the first of two Bills that will rewrite corporation tax—the second will be introduced later this year. Another Bill, also to be introduced in Parliament later this year, will rewrite international and other provisions, some of which apply for the purposes of both income tax and corporation tax.

John Redwood: Does the Minister really think that producing a Bill that is 821 pages long represents a great simplification? Can the Government not do a bit better than that?

Stephen Timms: Indeed I do think that, and I shall address exactly that point in just a moment. Length and complexity do not necessarily go hand in hand—indeed, the brevity of some of the old, rather opaque legislation is a serious and significant cause of complexity, which this rewrite addresses.
	The tax law rewrite project was set up in 1996 by the then Chancellor—the current shadow Business Secretary—and I am pleased that it has, on the whole, continued to enjoy cross-party support. The principal aim is that rewritten legislation should be far more accessible to users than the source legislation, some of which is, as I have said, dense and difficult to follow. The project's success in meeting that aim is widely recognised, and has been confirmed by independent market research. To date, the project has rewritten the capital allowances and income tax legislation. This Bill is the fifth produced by the project.
	The project takes great care to ensure that the effect of the legislation is unchanged, but it can encompass minor changes in the law when they improve the legislation—for example, by clarifying points, repealing obsolete material or correcting minor, unintended anomalies. There are 106 such changes set out in the explanatory notes to this Bill. However, major changes will always be matters for a Finance Bill. All proposed changes in the law are considered by both the project's Committees, and no minor changes are included in the Bill without the approval of both.
	All this would be impossible without considerable input through consultation of UK tax specialists and others. I wish to express particular thanks to them, and to members of the project's consultative committee, chaired by Robina Dyall, who have ensured that the consultation has been detailed and thorough. The consultative committee includes representatives of small and large businesses, accountants, lawyers and other tax specialists, and their time and commitment are greatly appreciated.
	The strategy of the project is set by its steering committee, chaired by Lord Newton of Braintree, and includes members from both Houses of Parliament, the judiciary, business and consumer groups and the accountancy and legal professions. I am particularly grateful to Lord Newton for his commitment and guidance.
	The Joint Committee of both Houses, chaired by the hon. Member for Gosport (Sir Peter Viggers), considered the Bill on 27 January and noted the extensive process of consultation to which the Bill had been exposed. It particularly noted the way in which the corporation tax provisions had been split between this and the second corporation tax Bill, those provisions for which the usual consultation procedures had been curtailed, and the powers in the Bill to amend the legislation. The Joint Committee also considered all the amendments to the Bill.
	I am pleased to say the Joint Committee concluded that the Bill will be a welcome clarification of the existing law, which will be easier to use and more accessible to users. The Committee was satisfied that changes to the law were of very minor significance and it accepted the amendments, all of which were of a minor, technical nature.

Lembit �pik: I am very encouraged by what the Minister has said about consultation and the breadth of the Government's commitment to the simplification of tax law. Can he give an indication of how substantial the decrease in tax regulation will be for small businesses? Will they actually notice a difference? I love the idea of the Bill, but I am concerned that it is less courageous than small businesses would like.

Stephen Timms: I am not in a position to quantify the benefit, but on the basis of the feedback that has been received on the Bill and the research undertaken on previous rewrite Bills, I expect that those who use the legislation will find it significantly easier to use than was the case in the past. I have a figure for the overall saving that we think will accrue to business, small and large, from this measure, which isfrom memory 25 million. That is a worthwhile saving and one that small businesses will appreciate. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that important point.
	I have explained that the Bill contains provisions used by companies in computing their income and certain basic provisions. It is the first of the Bills rewriting corporation tax. Some of the corporation tax rules in it originally applied to both income tax and corporation tax but, as the tax law rewrite project's previous Acts provided a separate set of provisions for income tax, the income tax provisions have been in the rewrite style whereas the corresponding corporation tax legislation remained in its original form. This Bill starts the process of bringing the drafting of corporation tax back into line with that for income tax where the provisions share the same source legislation.
	I come now to the point raised by the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood). In the old legislation, income tax and corporation tax shared some significant bodies of legislation. In the rewrite, those two have been separated, so there is one set of provisions for income tax and one for corporation tax. Of course, that means that there are more pages, but it also means that the Bill is easier for small businesses and others to use.
	Much of the ground covered by the Bill is similar to that covered by the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005. That similarity, I think, will make it easier for tax professionals and local accountants who deal with both income tax and corporation tax to find the provisions that they are looking for. The Bill contains provisions on trading and property income, income from other sources and provisions used in computing income that are specific to companies, such as those for loan relationships, derivative contracts and intangible fixed assets. It rewrites provisions for particular types of expenditure, such as that incurred by companies with investment business and companies incurring expenditure on research and development.
	Some key basic corporation tax provisions are also rewritten in the Bill, such as the charge to tax, the rules about accounting periods and the legislation about company residence.
	To sum up, the Bill is a worthwhile contribution to modernising our direct tax legislation so that it is clearer and easier to use. It maintains the project's excellent record in improving current legislation and it has been welcomed by those who use it. I am grateful for the support that has been shown across the House throughout this process. I welcome the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke), who has taken part in the debates as we considered the Bill in Committee, to the Front Bench. I commend the Bill to the House.

David Gauke: It is a pleasure to be able to speak in this Third Reading debate. We obviously debated the matter on Second Reading and in Committee, which had an unusual structure, and given that little has happened since I suspect that we might cover some of the same ground.
	Although this is one of the longest and largest Bills that the House has ever considered, this will be a relatively short speech. I want to take the opportunity to put on record my praise for the professionalism and thoroughness of the HMRC staff and secondees who have been involved in this process. Having spoken to a number of outside experts, I know that they have been impressed by the manner in which the process has progressed. I also want to thank the outside bodies for their contributions to the process. They have plenty of other things to be doing and the demands of a Bill of this size create considerable pressures for them, but they have none the less made a full contribution to the process.
	I also want to thank the Joint Committee on Tax Law Rewrite Bills for its work in scrutinising the legislation. In particular, I want to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Sir Peter Viggers), who was the acting Chairman for the Committee's deliberations. He effectively succeeded my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), who served in that role for two years with much distinction.
	The Bill is essentially a rewriting of existing legislation, as the Minister has stated. Consequently, the scrutiny that the Bill received was somewhat different from the normal procedure. None the less, one or two points were raised before the Joint Committee, one of which was the powers in the Bill to amend legislation and the ability of Parliament to scrutinise those changes. I know that the Joint Committee received sufficient reassurances on that point, which I also raised on Second Reading, but I would be grateful if the Minister, if he has the opportunity to catch your eye again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, could reiterate the protections that are available and assure the House that it will not be possible to amend primary legislation through secondary legislation other than in very restricted terms.
	As I said, this Bill rewrites existing law, and the Minister referred to 106 minor changes that it will bring in. Forty three will alter the amount of tax due in practice: of them, 23 will involve a decrease in tax due and 19 either a decrease or an increase. The one change that will result in an increase in the amount of tax due clearly falls within any definition of the word minor, as it will merely cause the threshold at which the relief for research and development expenditure to be lower by 27 in a leap year.
	I do not think that that is an attempt by the Government to fill in by stealth the black hole in the public finances, but it would be helpful if the Minister could give some guidance to the House about what, precisely, a minor change is. We may say that we will know one when we see one, and these changes certainly fall into the minor category, but some guidance from the Minister would be helpful.

Robert Syms: My hon. Friend makes a good point. The documents accompanying the Bill are full of boxes to be ticked when more or less tax ends up being paid, but does he agree that we also need to know the net effect of the measures? What is the overall effect of these minor changes? They may add up to very little, but it would be useful to get the relevant figures from the Minister.

David Gauke: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who raises an important point. I do not know whether the Minister will want to give us a break down of the Bill's annual net effect for most years or just for leap years, but some guidance from him on the effect of the minor changes would be very helpful.

John Redwood: Am I right in thinking that this Billassuming it is passedwill come into effect on 1 April? We have a Budget only 22 days later, so this could be a 22-day regime for corporation tax that will be replaced by whatever the Chancellor wishes. How does it simplify life if people have to mug up on this Bill, only to discover 22 days later that everything has changed?

David Gauke: My right hon. Friend makes an interesting point, and I hope that the Minister will respond to it. We will have another Finance Bill in the summer that I suspect will involve changes to corporation tax. The rate at which tax law changes is a problem: some changes are unavoidable, but many are not.
	The Bill is concerned with drafting problems and its intention is to make corporation tax law much clearer, but it does so at the expense of volume, as my right hon. Friend noted earlier. However, my main criticism is that it does not address the fundamental problem of tax law complexity. To be fair, it does not attempt to do so, but that is one of its weaknesses.
	Our tax system is widely regarded as over complex. Professional bodies and business groups such as the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants, the manufacturers' organisation EEF and the Chartered Institute of Taxation have all made that point again and again in recent months. It is notable that, when the firm United Business Media relocated from the UK to the Republic of Ireland, it cited tax complexity as one of the reasons behind the move.
	It is also worth reminding the House of the survey undertaken by the Tax Reform Commission in 2006. There were 600 responses from businesses of various sizes: 60 per cent. said that they were increasing spending on tax planning and compliance, and 78 per cent. said that tax complexity had increased in the previous five years. It is therefore clear that we do have a problem with tax complexity.

Mark Field: My hon. Friend is making very clear the grave limitations of this Bill. Does he favour establishing a tax commission, with wide-ranging powers not dissimilar to those of the Law Commission, that would be able to advise the Treasury about tax? Or does he think that we are going down the right route by taking some steps towards simplification and that such advice should be given through the usual channels?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend anticipates my next remark almost perfectly. I made the point on Second Reading that the tax law rewrite team is a very useful structure. It is a dedicated team consisting of HMRC staff and secondees. There is a steering group made up of Members of both Houses and accountants, lawyers and academics, and there is scrutiny by a Joint Committee, again made up of Members of both Houses, but it has a limited role, looking only at the drafting.
	What we propose, and as was advocated by my noble Friend Lord Howe in his report last summer, is that we do exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) suggests and move towards expanding the remit of the tax law rewrite process or, to use the analogy of the Law Commission, that we move towards a body that is consistently looking at ways we can simplify our tax system, that we see that as a long-term objective that is clearly to the benefit of the UK economy, and that we therefore do not spend our time producing reports and new laws that have value, but are not as valuable as they might be if we made a proper attempt at rewriting our tax law to make it much simpler.
	The administration of tax law and the complexity of tax law are important issues. The tax burden is enormously important, but the way our tax law works is proving to be a disadvantage to the UK. We could once be proud of our tax law, but I fear that that is not the case any more.
	In conclusion, we support the Bill. We note that it adds to the length of our tax code, but the attempt at greater clarity is to be valued. The Bill does not do all that it could do. We would benefit hugely from greater simplification of corporation tax. The Bill does not provide that, so it is of more limited use than it might be. I urge the Government once again to examine the process whereby tax law is made. A permanent body seeking to achieve greater simplification would be of enormous benefit to the UK.

Jeremy Browne: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate. So far everyone who has spoken also contributed to Second Reading, so I shall not detain the House for longer than necessary by going over too much ground that has already been covered.
	I, too, place on the record my congratulations and appreciation to Lord Newton of Braintree and others, including outside experts, who contributed to the process and gave a great deal of their time and expertise to assist British business directly by seeking to simplify the corporation tax code. Like the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) and no doubt everyone who participates in the debate, I welcome all attempts to consolidate our corporation taxes, to make the system easier to digest and to simplify the structures.
	I accept that, as was pointed out on Second Reading, we are unlikely ever to reach a situation where the corporation tax code, the rules and regulations, are easily understandable for the man and woman in the street. One could argue that if they were easily understood by the layman, they would probably be insufficiently detailed to serve their function. Nevertheless, it is helpful to have a system that is as simple as possible. That must be good for business at a time when it is seeking to minimise overheads. In legislative terms, it must be good that we do not have to employ, at great expense, huge numbers of people with great expertise, in both the public and private sector, to try to understand what the law means and how it applies to the companies affected. That is not productive endeavour. It is not a wealth-creating process, but all businesses and Government have to participate in that exercise. To the extent that it can be minimised consistent with keeping the law fair in its application, we would all welcome that.
	There is still a long way to go. The United Kingdom has the longest tax code in the world. There are five volumes of the Bill and four volumes of explanatory notes. There are 1,330 clauses divided into 21 parts. Following the intervention from the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood), I calculated that if there are 21 days between the law coming into effect and possibly being overtaken by events when the Chancellor delivers his Budget in the House, there would be one part to digest every day over the sadly brief three-week lifetime of the Billroughly 60 clauses a day with which tax lawyers and accountants had to familiarise themselves before the law potentially became redundant.
	Even in its consolidated form, the Bill is an enormous piece of legislation. There are four schedules divided into 25 parts, the contents list alone is 63 pages long, and at least 33 Acts of Parliament and 16 statutory instruments are affected by it. The table of origins, which details the origin of all the provisions, is 174 pages long, and the table of destinations, which details whether a provision has been rewritten or repealed, is 196 pages long. It is a huge work, which shows what an achievement it was that those experts managed to get to grips with it at all. The idea that as a result we have a tax code that is simple is far from the truth.
	I finish with an observation from the CBI tax task force, which I quoted on Second Reading. It stated:
	It is ironic that what has followed
	since the first Budget of the former Chancellor, now the Prime Minister
	has been a decade characterised by unprecedented legislative change in the UK corporate tax system, much of it characterised by a high degree of complexity and inadequate consultation.
	Inasmuch as the work under discussion today is designed to address that problem, it is welcome, but I fear that I share the instincts and observations of many hon. Members when I say that there is much work still to be done.

Peter Viggers: The Bill is important because, as the Corporation Tax Act 2009, it will be the Act that students and practitioners will have to study in future. I hear the right hon. and hon. Members who point out that the Budget of 22 April will overtake some of the contents of the Act, as it is to become, but the Act will endure on the statute book and the Budget of 2009 will only make some changes to it.
	The procedure is unusual, as has been commented. The Bill was referred to a Joint Committee on Tax Law Rewrite, which I chaired, of hon. Members of this House and Members of the other place. We received a memorandum from the tax law rewrite project team, to whom I join in paying tribute, and we took oral evidence from it. We satisfied ourselves that there had been extensive consultation with representative bodies, and we satisfied ourselves by inquiry that the 106 changes in tax legislation were properly accommodated. The legislation that we are considering is part of the rewrite of corporation tax law, income tax law having already been rewritten. As the Financial Secretary pointed out, the income tax legislation is in rewrite form, whereas the corporation tax legislation is now moving into rewrite form. A second corporation tax Bill is to come before us later this year, followed in due course by a further Bill to deal with international aspects of the law.
	This Corporation Tax Bill deals mainly with income, while the second one later this year will deal mainly with allowances. We on the Committee satisfied ourselves that the House of Commons would have the power to amend the legislation and the ability to scrutinise any changes that had occurred. We satisfied ourselves generally that the Bill should be passed by the House of Commons. I join my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) in saying that the emphasis among legislators and professionals is always to programme towards complexity, whereas the consumer's voice would no doubt plead for simplicity, if possible. I add my voice to my hon. Friend's in pleading for simplicity wherever possible.
	The hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. Browne) referred to the Bill's 1,330 clauses, 63 pages of contents, 174 pages of tables of origins and 196 pages of tables of destinations. I intend to submit it to the Guinness Book of Records as the longest Bill ever, a position that it has taken from the Companies Act 2006. There is, however, a rival: in 1821, this House passed an Act written on 757 membranes of vellum; it would have stretched for 348 m or 382 yd. I suppose one could claim that that Act holds the record, although I would maintain that, having been written on membranes, it is not entirely comparable.
	I confirm that the tax rewrite Committee carried out its duties in the proper form, and I join those who have spoken in this brief debate in commending the Bill to the House.

John Redwood: I have declared in the Register of Members' Interests that I am a company director, although obviously I am not pursuing those interests in these remarks. I wish to talk about the general impact of this style of legislation on the business community and to ask the questions that underpin this debate. Is length a good thing and a simplification in itself because it makes things clearer, or is it a good thing because it provides plenty of opportunity for advisers to make an honest living from giving advice on the lengthy legislation that we see before us?
	Colleagues have mentioned the fact that this Bill involves 821 pages of law and 1,330 clausesit is a blockbuster of a Bill. We have now heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport (Sir Peter Viggers) that it is only part of the corporation tax framework and that, having had this wonderful Bill, we can look forward to an exciting sequel to deal with allowances, which relates to taxing the income of companies.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend, because he and his colleagues have worked extremely hard, and I am sure that they have done a good job within the framework laid down by the consensus. In this Third Reading debate, we need to ask ourselves whether this style of revision and legislating is a worthy way for certain colleagues to spend a lot of legislative timethe rest of us spend rather lessand whether it results in a simplification that will make a material difference.
	Like my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke), I am worried by the exodus of quite a number of companies from this country. They complain about not only the level of company taxation, but its complexity. That should be in our thoughts, given that we are in a competitive battle to keep and increase the number of jobs in this country; against the current background, we as legislators should have that in mind with everything that we do. Do we think that this blockbuster Bill will reassure people? If we pass it, will lawyers in leading companies who are thinking of emigrating seize it and say, At last! Parliament has got the message. We now have a simple and comprehensible system of company taxation?

David Taylor: The right hon. Gentleman is expressing concerns about the rationale of companies that move to other countries; it is hard to say whether that is due to high corporation tax or complexity. However, is he reassured by the fact that the majority of FTSE 100 companies pay nugatory or nil amounts of corporation tax?

John Redwood: That may show that they have good tax advisers and are happy to stay here on that basis, or it may show that they are simply not profitable enough because of the general background. I understand why, unfortunately, a lot of companies will not be paying tax in future; it is because of the desperate conditions in which they find themselves.
	We all want fair taxation at a fair level. If I were asked whether the complexity was more or less important than the rate, I would say that the rate is the most important thing. However, complexity is an issue, and complexity allied to too many changes or to too vicarious a system can be extremely worrying. A feeling has built up in some parts of the corporate sector. People are not sure what the law is. Furthermore, there can be changes, through the anti-avoidance and anti-evasion measures strengthened and taken by the Governmentsometimes for good reasonsand through judicial or Revenue decisions that try to interpret the rather complex law. That combination of a rate that is no longer that competitive with the legal complexity and too many changes that people cannot understand or do not think were properly heralded, can create uncertainty and lead to companies leaving these shores.
	My worry is that length and complexity go together. It is reassuring to hear the architects tell us that many people want the issues spelt out in detail and that that has now happened in lucid and clear prose so that people can relax and know exactly where they are. I confess that, probably in common with most speakers in this debate, I have read some but not all the Bill. Anyone trying to read it would rapidly come to the conclusion that it is difficult for anybody but an accountant specialising in corporation tax to understand what it means for any given business.
	Let us look at clauses 190 and 191 on page 85. Clause 190 tries to give a basic meaning of post-cessation receipt. It says that it means
	a sum...which is received after a person permanently ceases to carry on a trade, and...which arises from the carrying on of the trade before the cessation.
	I can understand that. However, the clause goes on to say:
	In this Chapter, except in sections 194 and 195, references to a person permanently ceasing to carry on a trade include
	(a) in the case of a company, the occurrence of an event treated under section 18 of ITTOIA 2005 (companies beginning or ceasing to be within charge to income tax) as the company permanently ceasing to carry on the trade, and
	(b) in the case of a trade carried on by a person in partnership, the occurrence of an event treated under section 246(4) of ITTOIA 2005 (basic meaning of post-cessation receipt) as the person permanently ceasing to carry on the trade.
	I shall spare the House clause 191, but it is another little gem, citing another series of sections of legislation to which the relevant people have to cross-refer. That little sample of the delights of this reading for insomniacs tells us that the Bill is certainly not a clear and lucid expos that an intelligent, rational man or woman could read and immediately understand; they would still need to rush to their advisers to try to get to grips with it.
	The Bill gets more exciting in parts; I did not quote one of the most exciting bits. Clause 479, for example, invites us to learn about
	non-lending relationships not involving discounts.
	The mind boggles at what might be involved in one of those non-lending relationships, but, helpfully, we are told that
	A company has a relevant non-lending relationship if
	(a) the company stands, or has stood, in the position of a creditor or debtor in relation to a money debt,
	(b) the money debt did not arise from a transaction for the lending of money...and
	(c) the money debt is one of the kinds mentioned in subsection (2).
	We then go through five other subsections to clause 479 to try to wrestle with the complicated issue of what a non-lending relationship not involving a discount is. Having passed the GCSE, we can then go on to the scholarshiprelevant non-lending relationships involving a discount. These are just samples to show that this law is getting exceedingly complicated.
	One of the clauses that I most like, because it has a topical flavour to it, is clause 524Shares subject to outstanding third party obligations. I wonder if when that was written people had in mind our growing shareholdings in the British banking system. It says:
	This section applies to the share held by the investing company if it...is subject to outstanding third party obligations (see subsection (2)), and...is an interest-like investment...For the purposes of this Chapter a share is subject to outstanding third party obligations if...the share is subject to obligations of a kind specified in subsection (4)...the obligations are...obligations of a person other than the investing company, or...obligations of the investing company which, under any relevant arrangements, will or might be discharged directly or indirectly by any other person, and...the obligations are yet to be discharged...Accordingly, those obligations are the 'third party obligations' in the case of that share...The kinds of obligation
	ones with which we are getting very familiar under this Government
	are...an obligation to meet unpaid calls on the share
	there will be plenty of those
	and any other obligation to make a contribution to the capital of the issuing company that could affect the value of the share.
	That is all too poignant and topical. Obviously, people had great foresight in putting in those provisions to deal with the burgeoning volume of cash that we, for no good reason, are tipping into banks that need to sort out their costs and lending policies rather more quickly.
	I should like the Minister to respond to these points of principle about whether we need to continue with this kind of process in future. Perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport, who has worked valiantly, should be given a different remit on a future piece of legislation, whereby we would see that there is some connection between length and complexity and that the length of a Bill is not necessarily an indication that it is easier to understand or more likely to avoid all kinds of dispute. Lawyers are very clever people. Private sector lawyers tend to get paid rather more than parliamentary draftsmen and public sector lawyers trying to battle against them in terms of such legislation. Far from reducing the number of uncertainties, the longer the Bill, the more causes for action there will be. The more words there are in a Bill, the more it can be challenged in court and the fewer the people who know the true tax base of the country.
	We are in danger of not being able to see the wood for the huge number of trees that have been felled to produce the paper for this legislation. I cannot believe that having 821 pages of law to do about the half the job on corporation tax represents the final statement on simplification. I live in some fear that once people have homed in and boned up on this legislation, some 22 days later the Chancellor may wish to make fairly big changes to it. Of course, I understand that it is a founding text for a period of years, but if Chancellors decide to make too many changes to founding texts, that has the added hazard of all the amendments and complications added on top of the 821 pages of law. Surely there is a better way. This will not be welcomed by the business community currently resident in Britain, and I fear that it is not the answer to those who are leaving this country saying the law is too complex.

Stephen Timms: I welcome the broad support that has been expressed

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Minister needs to seek the leave of the House.

Stephen Timms: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker; thank you.
	I welcome the constructive comments made by those who have spoken in the debate. I am grateful for the broad, if not absolutely universal, support that the Bill enjoys. There has been well deserved recognition for everyone who has contributed to this work. I add my thanks to those that have been expressed to the hon. Member for Gosport (Sir Peter Viggers).
	Let me respond to some of the points that have been made. It has been suggested that the rewrite goes only part of the way and that the underlying tax code should be simplified. We are, in fact, committed to simplification. There is a rolling programme in place, with reviews involving businesses and tax professionals and considering, for example, how corporation tax calculations and returns can be simplified for smaller companies and how to simplify rules on corporation tax for related companies. That work builds on recent reforms to the business tax system, and the rewrite complements our commitment.
	The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke)I am grateful for his supportreferred to the possibility of establishing an independent body to oversee tax simplification. When he made that point in the Second Reading Committee, I responded that in my view another layer of bureaucracy is not the way forward. However, we have already had that debate.
	Comments were made about the length of the Bill and of tax legislation in general, to which I responded. I should, though, underline that in addition to making the legislation clearer, rewriting repeals a considerable amount of legislation. What matters most to businesses is not the number of pages in the legislation but the ease of using it. It may be some reassurance to the right hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. Redwood) and others that in the assessment of the World Bank the UK compares very favourably with countries with shorter legislation. It says that a standard UK company spends less time complying with our tax system than a similar company in any other G7 country105 hours in the UK compared with 119 in Canada, 132 in France, 187 in the United States, 196 in Germany, 334 in Italy and 355 in Japan. I hope that that makes it clear that in fact our legislation is much easier to use.
	I am happy to put on the record again the reassurances that I set out in Committee, in response to the hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire, about the circumstances in which the powers to amend legislation will be used. As with previous rewrite Acts, these powers will not be used unless the tax law rewrite project's consultative and steering committees agree that they should be.
	The Bill makes things easier for everybody using this legislation: from small companies to large companies; from local accountancy practices to the large accountancy firms. I am grateful for the broad support that has been expressed and commend it to the House.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

Business of the House

Chris Bryant: I beg to move,
	That, at this day's sitting, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on:
	(a) the Motions in the name of Ms Harriet Harman relating to membership of Regional Select Committees, not later than one and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order; and
	(b) the Motions in the name of Ms Harriet Harman relating to Green Book (Committee on Members' Allowances), Liaison Committee (Membership) and Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion for this Order; such Questions shall include the Questions on any Amendments selected by the Speaker which may then be moved; proceedings may be entered upon or continue after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply.
	This is a very simple business of the House motion. It is a slightly different version from that which was tabled and on the Order Paper last night but was objected to. It allows one and a half hours for a single debate on putting the names of various Members of the House on eight regional Select Committees. This is normally done without debate at the moment of interruption, so it seemed to the Government that an hour and a half was a perfectly adequate amount of time.

Andrew MacKinlay: Before my hon. Friend moves from the procedure relating to the motion on regional Select Committees, let me say that I am bewildered. Why have not the names of these Members been before the Committee of Selection? We have that Committee, which costs money and so on, but these appointments were never put to itwhy not?

Chris Bryant: I think, if my hon. Friend will allow, that that is a matter for the next debate [ Interruption. ] I am happy to answer the question; it is a very straightforward matter. The Committee of Selection does not come into play when it is a question of Members being put on a Committee by virtue of a temporary Standing Order. These appointments are made under a temporary Standing Order that lapses at the end of this Parliament; consequently, there is no need for them to go to the Committee of Selection. However, that is for the later debate, because this is merely about the business of the House motion.
	A second period of an hour and a half is allowed for relatively minor issues that have been pressed on me by Members in all parts of the House, in one instance by the chairman of the 1922 committee. I hope that hon. Members will feel able to support the motion.
	 Question put.
	 The House proceeded to a Division.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I ask the Serjeant at Arms to investigate the delay in the No Lobby.

The House having divided: Ayes 281, Noes 217.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Regional Select Committees (Membership)

Chris Bryant: I beg to move,
	That Mr David Drew, Linda Gilroy, Kerry McCarthy, Dr Doug Naysmith and Alison Seabeck be members of the South West Regional Select Committee.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, we will take the following:
	Motion 6 Regional Select Committee (East of England)
	That Mr Charles Clarke, Dr Ian Gibson, Patrick Hall, Margaret Moran and Mr Anthony Wright be members of the East of England Regional Select Committee.
	Motion 7 Regional Select Committee (West Midlands)
	That Mr Adrian Bailey, Richard Burden, Mr David Kidney, Mr James Plaskitt and Joan Walley be members of the West Midlands Regional Select Committee.
	Motion 8 Regional Select Committee (South East)
	That Ms Celia Barlow, Dr Stephen Ladyman, David Lepper, Gwyn Prosser and Mr Andrew Smith be members of the South East Regional Select Committee.
	Motion 9 Regional Select Committee (North East)
	That Mr David Anderson, Mr David Clelland, Mrs Sharon Hodgson, Ms Dari Taylor and Phil Wilson be members of the North East Regional Select Committee.
	Motion 10 Regional Select Committee (North West)
	That Rosie Cooper, Mr David Crausby, Tony Lloyd, Mr Eric Martlew and Geraldine Smith be members of the North West Regional Select Committee.
	Motion 11 Regional Select Committee (Yorkshire and the Humber)
	That Mr Clive Betts, Mr Ian Cawsey, Mary Creagh, Mr Eric Illsley and Shona McIsaac be members of the Yorkshire and the Humber Regional Select Committee.
	Motion 12 Regional Select Committee (East Midlands)
	That Mr John Heppell, Mr Bob Laxton, Judy Mallaber, Sir Peter Soulsby and Paddy Tipping be members of the East Midlands Regional Select Committee.

Chris Bryant: On 12 November last year, the House decided three things in relation to regional Committees: first, that there should be eight new regional Committees of the House, charged with examining regional strategies and the work of regional bodies; secondly, that each Committee should have nine members; and, thirdly, that the composition of regional Committees should be the same as that of every other Select Committee, namely in proportion to the political balance of the whole House. That means that the respective numbers for each party should be five Labour members, three Conservative members and one Liberal or minority party member of each Committee.
	The regional Committees were set up under a temporary Standing Order that expires at the end of this Parliament, so it is for the Government rather than the Committee of Selection to put forward names for the Committees. That is in consequence of Standing Order 121(2). I hope that that is helpful to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), who raised the matter in the previous debate.

Andrew MacKinlay: Not particularly.

Chris Bryant: It is as helpful as it is going to get.

Alan Beith: As the Deputy Leader of the House has had the opportunity to reflect since the House passed those motions, has it not occurred to him how absurd it would be to draft in Conservative Members from the south of England to fill places on the Committee that is responsible for the north of England region, or, as the motions before us would, draft in Labour Members including Parliamentary Private Secretaries to fill places in regions where Labour has very few Members?

Chris Bryant: No Labour Members are being put on the Committees tonight who are not from the relevant region. The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) asked the Leader of the House about that in the debate on 12 November, and it is not for me to second-guess what the House decided then or produce another version of it. The House came to a view on the three matters that I mentioned, and it is therefore only right for the Leader of the House to introduce the appropriate motions to meet what we decided.

Julia Goldsworthy: The Deputy Leader of the House said that the regional Committees will hold regional government agencies to account. Does he believe that there will be a conflict of interest if Parliamentary Private Secretaries sit on those Committees?

Chris Bryant: Having both been a Parliamentary Private Secretary and served on a Select Committee, I can tell the hon. Lady that there is no reason for a PPS's being unable to scrutinise regional policies fully and thoroughly. I think that she accepts that the point of the Select Committee structure is to have those who are not necessarily party spokespeople for an issue sitting on the Committees. I merely note that significant Front Benchers from the Liberal Democrat party and the main Opposition party serve on Select Committees. Consequently, I believe that it would be inappropriate for the hon. Lady to push her argument.

John Redwood: The north-east is the only part of the country that was allowed a vote on regional government, which was voted down resoundingly. What part of no does the Deputy Leader of the House not understand?

Chris Bryant: The motions are nothing to do with regional government. Regional development agencies and other regional bodies spend a large amount of money on behalf of the taxpayer and it is inappropriate, especially at such a time, for that money not to receive proper scrutiny and consideration by the whole House, not only individual Members in a region. We are considering parliamentary scrutiny of the work that goes on in the regions.

Andrew MacKinlay: I am told that the Clerk of the House has already written to those whose names appear on the Order Paper, summoning them to an inaugural meeting. It surprises me that the letter has gone out before we have made the resolutions, but I do not want to labour that point. When is it intended that the Committees should meet initially? What does my hon. Friend see in his mind's eye as the location and timing of the meetings? Will they take place on Tuesdays, Wednesdays or Thursdaysor, as I have been told, on Mondays or Fridays?

Chris Bryant: I have no idea about letters that the Clerk of the House may or may not have writtenhe has certainly not sent a copy of any such letter to me. However, it is for the Committees to decide when they meet. As I am sure that my hon. Friend knowshe has been here a long timewhen a new Committee is proposed, the Member with the longest unbroken service in the House determines the date and time of the first meeting and takes the Chair until a Chairman is chosen. My hon. Friend asked when the Committees should sit

Andrew MacKinlay: And where.

Chris Bryant: If my hon. Friend has a little patience, I will deal with each point in turn. He asked when the Committees should sit. That decision is entirely up to the Committees. That is the convention of every Select Committee and it would be wrong of me to tell any Committee how to conduct its business.

Edward Leigh: Will the Deputy Leader of the House give way?

Chris Bryant: I will in a moment, but my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock will get impatient if I do not answer his second question about where the Committees will meet. When the matter was discussed in November, many hon. Members suggested that it would make sense for regional Committees occasionally to meet in the relevant region. I hope that they will choose to do that, but it is up to them.

Edward Leigh: I have spent my entire career in this place on Select Committees, and I am a committed supporter of them. Does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that their structure depends on consensus between the parties?

Chris Bryant: I sat on the Culture, Media and Sport Committee for four years and there were many matters on which we tried to proceed by consensus. However, occasionally, there was a complete divergence of view, for example, about the BBC licence fee. I fundamentally disagreed with the Committee Chairman, although he was in the same party. Select Committees should proceed on the basis not always of consensus but of independence of mind and thought, and on the ability of individual members to listen to the evidence and reach a conclusion based on it.

Edward Leigh: I am talking about the structure, not the issues. Committees such as the Public Accounts Committee work because the parties agree about the structure. That is why the effort that we are considering is doomed from the start.  [Interruption.]

Chris Bryant: The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome claims from a sedentary position that I do not understand the concept of Select Committees. I fully understand and support it. Select Committees are one of the great innovations in the House in the past 20 years. One has only to consider the work of the Treasury Committee in the past few weeks. It was able to do a job of scrutiny that could not be done in the Chamber. That is because Select Committees proceed with independence of mind. Individual members serve in their own right, can pursue the evidence to its logical conclusion and produce a report based on it.  [Interruption.] I see another Select Committee Chair huffing and panting and waiting to intervene.

Peter Luff: I am attracted by the thought of dragging a few bankers to the Bar of the House, but that is another matter. One of the many reasons for my opposition to motion 7 on the west midlands Committee is that it includes no Worcestershire or Herefordshire Members because the Labour party has no Members in those counties except for the two who are Ministers and therefore cannot serve on the Committee. I am a reasonable manI may yet be persuaded of the case for the Committees, although I doubt itso will the Deputy Leader of the House tell me when Worcestershire and Herefordshire Members can contribute to regional scrutiny through the regional Grand Committee route, which the Government are also establishing?

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman, for whom I have great respect as Chair of his Select Committee, said that he may yet be persuaded of the merits of the motions. I suggest that he is being somewhat disingenuoushe nods. I remember his evidence to the Modernisation Committee, in which he said:
	The practical considerations of the Select Committee model are not inconsequential, they are very serious indeed, and the pressure on MPs' time here at Westminster is also a factor we have to bear in mind.
	I have known the tenor of the hon. Gentleman's views on regional Select Committees for some time. However, let me deal with his specific point that no one in the Labour ranks represents the two counties that he mentioned. There is a solution: the hon. Gentleman could have tabled an amendment to include Conservative Members on the Committee. We would then have full representation on it. I am grateful for his contribution to my speech.

Peter Luff: My intervention was probably too long, but its point was to ask when regional Grand Committees would meet. That could help tackle the problem.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am conscious that the Deputy Leader of the House is responding to interventions, but it is not a general debate about regional Committees, Select Committees or Grand Committees. We are discussing the constitution of the Committees, the existence of which has already been decided by the House. I urge the Deputy Leader of the House to restrain himself, if he can, in responding to interventions that are not about the motions.

Chris Bryant: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I can sometimes restrain myself. To reply to the hon. Gentleman's question briefly, the House took the view that regional Grand Committees should sit in tandem with the Select Committees. Once the Committees are in place, we want to start considering dates for regional Grand Committee meetings.

Matthew Taylor: The Deputy Leader of the House understands that I oppose the principle of Committees that reflect the make-up of the House rather than the democratic will of the region on behalf of which they are meant to act. However, on the specific motions, his response about Parliamentary Private Secretaries was inadequate. Under the proposed system, one PPS in our regional Select Committee will be expected to scrutinise the work of, and possibly cross question, the Secretary of State for Transport, to whom she is PPS. Can that genuinely constitute adequate scrutiny?

Chris Bryant: I know that the Liberal Democrats have a difference of viewI accept that it is an honourable differenceabout the composition of the Committees.

Alan Duncan: And us.

Chris Bryant: The shadow Leader of the House says, And us in a slightly pipsqueaky way, but the Conservative party had a different difference with the Government. The Liberal Democrats' difference is that they believe that each Committee should reflect the political composition of the region. That has not been done historically in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. The Committees are a way of providing parliamentary scrutiny of regional bodies. The majority of the scrutiny will be of the work of the regional development agencies, as many people said when the Modernisation Committee compiled its report. If individual Members feel that they have a conflict of interest, they must address that.

Andrew Pelling: Why, as a London Member, should I vote for the motions when a delay persists in establishing a Select Committee for Greater London?

Chris Bryant: I cannot remember whether the hon. Gentleman wanted a regional Committee for London

Andrew Pelling: indicated assent.

Chris Bryant: He does. We want to make progress on that, but we have not yet been able to do so. We have consulted the London assembly, the Mayor's office and local authorities in London because we do not want to proceed in a way that does not work well with those organisations. We hope that a London committee will appear on the Order Paper soon, but that is not before us tonight.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Deputy Leader of the House has again been tempted to talk about Committees that do not even exist yet.

Chris Bryant: rose

Nicholas Winterton: Will the Deputy Leader of the House give way?

Chris Bryant: I will give way as long as the hon. Gentleman is not going to tempt me.

Nicholas Winterton: I cannot say whether I am going to tempt the Deputy Leader of the House. Does he accept that the matters that we are debating are House matters, not party matters? I therefore refer to the intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), who chairs the Select Committee on Public Accounts with distinction. Historically, procedures of the House and the setting up of Select Committees have been decided in this place on a cross-party and consensual basis. Bearing in mind the fact that there was a whipped vote on the Government side in last year's vote and the fact that we will clearly have a whipped vote tonight, is it not right that the Government should review what they are doing, which has only their support and not the support of the Opposition parties in the House?

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I respect the view that, wherever possible, we should proceed in House business on the basis of consensus. Consensus, however, presumes that everybody will agree, and there are areas where sometimes people disagree. Incidentally, several Opposition Members who are not in the Chamber now have approached me and said that they would dearly love to sit on a regional Select Committeethey cannot do so because their political party has not been prepared to propose namesbecause they would like to scrutinise some of the policies of regional bodies. It would be wrong of the Leader of the House now to present anything other than what was carried in this House on 12 November. The way to proceed with consensus is for the hon. Gentleman's party and the other parties in the House to propose their Members for the Committees as well.

Tony Lloyd: Will my hon. Friend also confirm that it would be an unreasonable principle of parliamentary democracy if the search for consensus meant that the minority parties could block the demand from the majority parties for the proper scrutiny of the as yet not properly accountable structures of regional governance, particularly in the north of England? The issue before the House is the need for accountability of regional structures, not the posturing of the Opposition.

Chris Bryant: If I am honest, the most important thing in this debateI am being tempted a great deal this evening, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will try not to stray any furtheris the fact that there is a large amount of money and many issues, particularly in relation to the recession, that affect ordinary families in the regions of this country that need proper scrutiny by Parliament. The only way we have found of doing that is by bringing forward regional Select Committees.
	Like the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), I, too, pay tribute to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee. He quite often comes up with reports that I profoundly disagree withhe did so when I was on his Committee, albeit briefly. However, he and the other Select Committee Chairmen who are here this evening show the strength of the system. I believe that once regional Select Committees are up and running, they will be effective. They cannot, however, be up and running without members. We have obviously been unable to table names from those on the Opposition Benches this evening, although as I have said, we would be happy to do so. Indeed, we stand ready to do so if a damascene conversion happens in the next few daysI am looking at the shadow Leader of the House to see whether any such conversion is likely.

Alan Duncan: indicated dissent.

Chris Bryant: What a shame. The hon. Gentleman lets us down every time.
	We have, none the less, proposed names in order to fulfil the will of the House, as expressed last November, that in order to enhance the parliamentary scrutiny of regional bodies, their policies and expenditure should be accountable to regional Committees of the House. I will not go through each of the names that we have tabled. I merely note that there is considerable experience embodied in each Committee. There are two former Cabinet members, several prominent former local councillors and the admirable former Chairman of the Select Committee on Health, who I am sure knows, even if the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) thinks that I do not, how the Select Committee process works. I am sure that they will do an admirable job.

Jeremy Browne: Will the Deputy Leader of the House explain how the following conundrum in the south-west will work in practice? If all the parties propose Members, it seems entirely reasonable that Cornwall should be represented on the Committee for the south-west. However, all the MPs in Cornwall are Liberal Democrats. Under his structure, therefore, only one member of the south-west Committee would be a Liberal Democrat, despite the fact that the Liberal Democrats are the second biggest party in the region. Does that not strike him as a strange state of affairs?

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman is simply going back to the point that I have already made to two of his hon. Friends, namely that he disagrees with the decision of 12 November. That decision was that we would have Committees that were composed in proportion to the political composition of the whole House, because we believe that the process is not about regional scrutiny, but about parliamentary scrutiny of the regions. We should follow the convention that the House has adopted heretofore in relation to Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, and have Committees in proportion to the whole House. That means that it would be enormously helpfuland a good idea for the people of Cornwallif the Liberal Democrats were prepared to propose a member of that Committee.  [ Interruption. ] I can assure the hon. Gentleman that two Liberal Democrats will never provide more interest and excitement than one.
	The Select Committee system has been an immense success. We have seen the fruits of the system in recent weeks, through the work of the Select Committee on Treasury.  [ Interruption. ] Now that I have started on the Liberal Democrat theme, the other point is that we would have two completely different views on the same issue if we had two Liberal Democratsand probably two different views in the same hour from the same hon. Member.

Robert Smith: rose

Chris Bryant: We are now going to have a third view from the Liberal Democrats.

Robert Smith: Does the Deputy Leader of the House agree that the suspicion that his members would be under some kind of Whip is being fulfilled by his point?

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point. Touch.

Richard Bacon: On having two views, the Deputy Leader of the House mentioned that he sometimes disagreed with the unanimous all-party reports of the Public Accounts Committee. However, I was quite surprised a while ago to see his name on a list as a Committee member, because in my seven years on the Committee I never saw him turn up once. Can he say how often he was there?

Chris Bryant: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Much as the Minister might want to defend himself from that intervention, I think that he ought now to get down to the motions before us.

Chris Bryant: I think that I probably ought to be sitting down fairly soon, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
	I believe that the new Committees will play an important role in improving the scrutiny and democratic accountability of the public agencies and public bodies that operate in the English regions. We have enjoyed that in Wales.

Peter Luff: rose

Chris Bryant: I will give way finally to the hon. Gentleman, as long as it is a nice comment.

Peter Luff: I will try to make it nice. Earlier the Deputy Leader of the House invited me to suggest some names of Conservative Members from Worcestershire and Hereford who might serve on the relevant Committee. The trouble is that one is a Whip, while I am a Chairman of a Select Committee who does not have the time, and my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Miss Kirkbride) is already on two Select Committees, because of the pressure of spaces. Requiring them to serve on yet another Committee would undermine the Select Committee system of which the Deputy Leader of the House speaks so warmly. He speaks in favour of the Select Committee system, but those nominations would undermine the process that he praises.

Chris Bryant: All I would say is that the Labour Members who have been prepared to put their names forwardthere was competition in the Labour party to serve on the Committeesbelieve that the process is a priority, and they want to make it a priority. I completely understandthe hon. Gentleman made this point when he appeared before the Modernisation Committeethat there is intense pressure on right hon. and hon. Members' time. It is sometimes difficult to manage Public Bill Committees and duties in the House and elsewhere. However, it is quite simply wrong that more than 2.3 billion should be spent by, for instance, regional development agencies, without any parliamentary scrutiny. We need to address that. Finally, without members, the Committees cannot exist and cannot do their work. I therefore urge hon. Members to support the motions before us.

Alan Duncan: I thank the Deputy Leader of the House for talking us through the supposed merits of the motions before us. I somehow feel that he cannot believe in his heart that what he is advocating is a good thing. The truth is that this is a pretty sorry moment for the House, and I am afraid that he will now be required to hear this pip squeak a little further on the matter.
	What is before us this evening is a pretty mucky attempt to resuscitate a policy that is on the way outin fact, I am not really sure that it was ever properly on the way in. This Government's regional agenda is in complete disarray and chaos. The motions this evening are the fag-end of the fag-end of the fag-end of a policy that will never properly get off the ground.
	It has become obvious in the course of this Parliament that the Government's regional agenda was doomed from the outset. It arose out of the Government's document, The Governance of Britain. I do not particularly admire that document; it contains some pretty simplistic, childish views, and one of its elements was the regional agenda.

David Clelland: rose

Alan Duncan: I have hardly got off the ground, but I will give way.

David Clelland: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He suggested that the regional agenda was dead. If that is the case, why has his party appointed him to be a regional representative in the north-east?

Alan Duncan: I am not a regional

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I am prepared to allow the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan) some introductory remarks, because the Minister did exactly the same, but I hope that he will come back to the precise motion before the House before too long.

Alan Duncan: I am happy to concentrate exclusively on the motion. I hope that the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland) will therefore forgive me if I write to him on the matter that he has raised.
	We have before us the culmination of a process that was launched by the Leader of the House, who was initially against the regional Select Committees, but who was somehow, miraculously, persuaded to be in favour of them. Indeed, it was on her casting vote that the whole episode was launched. As many hon. Members have said today, this process has not enjoyed cross-party consensus from the start. The structure is enshrined in the motions before us, which nominate only Labour Members of Parliament to the Select Committees that are being set up.
	None the origins of the structure has been accepted by the House in a unified way. In fact, most of the evidence involved was against it. My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Peter Luff) has clearly stated that most of the responsibilities to be considered by the Committees are already covered by our existing Select Committee system. Covering the regions with Select Committees is an extension that makes no logical sense. It will involve responsibilities that are cross cutting and messy, and it will place a strain on House resources. Let us take the north as an example. The hon. Member for Manchester, Central (Tony Lloyd) has now gone, but he was arguing that Ministers needed somehow to be held to account. The northand the north-east in particularis crawling with Labour Members, and if they cannot hold their own Ministers to account, they need to examine their own effectiveness as Members.
	On the back of this agenda, the Government appointed regional Ministers, but no one really knows who they are, and we know even less about what they do. They were originally to be questioned in the House, but that has never happened. What are they doing anyway? In which Department do they sit? For what are they responsible? The document, The Governance of Britain, says that regional Ministers, who are supposedly to be held to account by these Select Committees, do all sorts of important things. It sets out their responsibilities, stating that they represent, facilitate, champion and again represent various things in the document. But do they decide anything? No, they do not. These Ministers are fictitious Ministers, supposedly joining up the various tentacles of government and somehow making a Minister in one Department tie his or her decisions in with those of a Minister in another Department. The people who should be held to account, if that is necessary, are the Ministers who take those decisions, not these supposed facilitators who have no executive responsibility whatever. They are faux Ministersfalse Ministersand they do not really exist as Ministers at all.
	In addition to the nonsense of regional Ministers, we have seen the collapse of the regional assembliesanother part of the great regional apparatus falling to bits. We are also seeing, as the shadow Leader of the House has said

Chris Bryant: No, you're the shadow Leader of the House.

Alan Duncan: I meant the Deputy Leader of the House, although actuallyno, my modesty has suddenly overcome me.
	There is also disarray in the regional development agencies. Those bodies were originally business-led organisations set up to assist economic development, but they have gradually been seized by the Government and become an apparatus of government. Our proposal is to give a lot of their powers15,000 houses to be built here and there, for exampleback to the county councils as the proper planning authorities. At the moment, however, they are largely answerable to the Committee chaired by my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire, the Business and Enterprise Committee. The accountability of these various organisations is therefore already enshrined in the apparatus of the House.

Peter Luff: I am happy to endorse what my hon. Friend is saying, and it might be helpful for him to know that, this morning, my Committee agreed a report on the regional development agencies, which will be published shortly.

Alan Duncan: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention, because it illustrates powerfully the absurdity of the Select Committee structure proposed in the motion.
	I should like to seek an assurance from the Deputy Leader of the House. Given that the proposed Select Committees are to be mannedor personed, or whatever the term isonly by Labour Members of Parliament, will he assure us that they are not simply going to go off on regional jaunts to seek regional headlines to assist the incumbency that they enjoy at the moment? We cannot have a Select Committee system like that, enjoying a budget and going off on jollies when its efficacy is being seriously challenged.

John Redwood: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Does he accept that, in the south-easta non-region that evokes no loyalty or sense of regionalismwe want to see the quangos abolished and any sensible powers and money given to elected local government, where an accountability structure is already in existence?

Alan Duncan: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. May I say again that these matters have already been decided by the House? This evening, we are simply talking about the membership of the Committees before the House.

Alan Duncan: We are against supporting the nomination of Members to the Committees because we do not accept the structure to which they are being nominated. Indeed, it would be far better to have regional Grand Committees to which anyone who is elected in a region could go to argue their case. That would provide a far better structure than having five or nine Members holding a region to account.

Andrew MacKinlay: One of the reasons why I did not put my name forward goes back to the question that I raised earlier: when and where will the Committees meet? Mr. Deputy Speaker, if I invited you to join an organisation, you might say, Andrew, I'd love to, but when does it meet? That is the logical question, and unless or until someone knows

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that it has already been explained to the hon. Gentleman that those decisions would have to be taken by the members of the Committee. They cannot be taken until the Committee has its members, which is what is being decided tonight.

Alan Duncan: The creation of Select Committees to hold the Executive to account has been a positive development in the House. However, the original model was designed to ensure that the structure of a Select Committee shadowed, matched, mirrored and scrutinised a particular Department. So, for each Department of State, running through the ranks of Secretary of State and Minister and all the civil servants in that Department, there was a Select Committee to which those people would be accountable through investigations and reports. The structure of the regional Select Committees, however, fires off in all sorts of directions and is a complete administrative mess. To appoint Members of Parliament to the Committees, as is proposed in the motions, would be to enshrine an absolutely chaotic structure. They will not shadow any Departments, and they will fire in all sorts of directions in ways that will never come together.
	When there is an imbalance in the House, as there is nowalthough I hope that it will swing the other way in due courseit is difficult for the Opposition, and particularly for a smaller party such as the Liberal Democrats, to find sufficient numbers of people to cover the ground, alongside all the other Select Committees and responsibilities involved. It is therefore unreasonable to have the number of Select Committees growing like Topsy, yet this measure would add eight to the existing number. It looks like a job creation scheme for Labour Members who seem not to have enough to do. At least the House took the decision not to pay the Chairmen.

Andrew Stunell: I am certainly following the hon. Gentleman's argument, and I support a great deal of it. However, his point about the Committees not being responsible for a particular Department, bearing in mind the kind words said about the Public Accounts Committee, seems a little wide of the mark. Surely it is proper for a Committee to look at all the areas of responsibility that fall within its domain.

Alan Duncan: But I do not think it would have the scope or resources to do that. The Public Accounts Committee has a large staff looking at the whole apparatus of Government and it can choose what to focus on, whereas a regional Select Committee has, let us say, 20 or so Government Departments to scrutinise. The idea that it can properly scrutinise all of those Departments in the interests of the region is, I believe, utterly fanciful.

Geraldine Smith: It is not that we Labour Members do not have enough to do; it is more that we do not have second jobs and outside interests that take up so much time, which prevent some MPs from doing their parliamentary duties in this House properly. It is those duties that MPs should be concentrating onnot on their outside interests.

Alan Duncan: One starting point to deal with that suggestion would be to see more people in this Chamber, doing their job, particularly on the Labour Benches, which are invariably empty. This Chamber is the central focus of central Government scrutiny, not some great structure of regional Committees that are spread so thinly as to be ineffective.
	I shall not detain the House much longer. We think that this is a farce and, quite frankly, we do not want anything to do with it. We would be fully justified in voting against all eight motions consecutively this evening; we are sorely tempted to do so, but we are mindful of the business that follows, so we will not go the full distance. However, we certainly intend to test the feeling of the House in a Division.
	It is clear that neither we nor the Liberal Democrats will nominate members from our respective parties to those Committees. That leaves them as Committees of Labour MPs alone and that illustrates the fact that the Government's regional policy is in a state of collapse. Ministers have been created to serve a non-existent regional policy, and regional Select Committees have been created to scrutinise near-fictitious regional Ministers. That lays the farcical on top of the fatuous on top of the fictitious. As a monument to this Government, it is fitting that we say, Bin the lot.

David Heath: There is probably no idea, however sensible at the start and however valuable it may be, that this Government cannot turn into a dog's dinner with their cloth-eared intransigence, their inability to give up even a scintilla of power from the centre and their inability to grasp the concepts of parliamentary structures and accountability and the will of the electorate in the regions of this country. That is precisely what the Government have done here.
	The Government have taken something that could be argued to be a necessary part of our powers of scrutinyto look at what is happening in these unelected quangos that spend so much of our moneyand they have messed it up. We were going to get rid of the quangos. Let us remember the commitment given in 1997 by the previous Deputy Prime Minister to get rid of all these unelected quangos. It never happened; in fact, the quangos increased and spent even more of taxpayers' money without any scrutiny. The answer would have been to democratise the quangos, provide scrutiny at source and make them accountable to local electoratesbut of course that has not happened. Instead, we have a body of governmental decision making and governmental spending that is not, I think, adequately scrutinised by the present departmental Select Committee structure.
	There is an argument for having a Select Committee structure for the regions, but what did the Government do with that concept? They decided not to bow to the will of the Housea term that the Deputy Leader of the House keeps using when he says that this was a decision of the House. Well, yes, in arithmetic terms, it was a decision of the House, but it was a decision of Labour Members onlynot a single Member of any other party supported them. When even the Modernisation Committee looked at this

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has heard the remarks I made to earlier speakers, but he is dealing with the issues before us in a very broad-brush way. The House has decided on the matter in that it has brought us to where we stand this evening. I do not want to curtail the hon. Gentleman's remarks immediately, but I would be grateful if he would confine his remarks to the motions before the House as soon as possible.

David Heath: I am most grateful, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I will soon reach the end of my opening and introductory remarks on the subject. I was hoping to point out to the House that the structure before us and the membership that we are appointing have come about as a result of a decision in the Modernisation Committee taken on the basis of the casting vote of the Leader of the Housea Minister of the Crownbecause she was unable to secure the support of any other party. We are being asked to consider a structure that has no nominations from these Benches, no nominations from the Conservatives, and no nominations from Plaid Cymru, from the Scottish Nationalists or from independent Members of the House, because only the Labour party believed in the way these Committees were to be set up. We argued that they should be set up on a different basis. We arguedthe Deputy Leader of the House was sensible and honest enough to say that this was a difference between us, which we have and will continue to havethat the people nominated to serve on these Select Committees should represent the political will of the regions they serve.
	In one sense that is a political argument insofar as we wanted to reflect the political outcome of elections, but it is also an argument in favour of accountability. Without it, we cannot reflect the regions in the appointment of Members of this House to the Committees. Let us look at the most glaring examples. Some aspects disadvantage the Labour party: in some regions, there is an argument for having more Labour Members than are proposed in the motions. That would apply in several regions, but let me start with the south-west, as it is my region and I know it best, but also because it provides the most glaring example of the inadequacy of the Government's proposals.
	The Government propose having five Labour Members in order to give the Labour party a majority in the south-west region and the west country, but does Labour represent the majority of seats in the west country? No. Does it represent the second largest party in the region? No. It is the third party in the south-west with just 13 seats in comparison with the Liberal Democrats' 16 seats and the Conservatives' 22. If the composition of the south-west region were properly arrived at, there would be four Conservatives, three Liberal Democrats and two Labour Members, yet we are to have five Labour Members, all serving mainly city constituencies, so they are not even capable of properly representing the different areas in the south-west.
	As was mentioned earlier, if we were to appoint a Liberal Democrat on the south-west regional Committee, he or she would have to come from Cornwallif Cornwall were to be represented at all. Somerset might well not be represented because there are three Liberal Democrats there. What is absolutely certain is that for Cornwall to be represented, there would be no representation for the constituencies of Somerset and Frome, Taunton, Yeovil, Mid-Dorset and North Poole, Bristol, West, Northavon, Cheltenham, Bath, North Devon, Torbay or Teignbridge. None of the Members from those constituencies could possibly serve on the Committee in order for Cornwall to be represented at all because of the five Liberal Democrat Members in that county. This is not a structure that can command any respect or credibility in the south-west.

Julia Goldsworthy: My hon. Friend has pointed out that the constituencies of the proposed Labour Committee members are predominantly urban. Has he also noted that four of the five represent just two cities in the south-west? The overall population of the region is 5 million, but the suggested membership is not representative of even the urban population, let alone the rural population.

David Heath: It often seems to me, in my rural Somerset constituency, that the regional development corporation understands also only two cities in the south-west. However, that is no reason for the proposed composition of the Select Committee.

Nicholas Winterton: I must say that, as a Conservative Member, I agree with what the hon. Gentleman is saying, but does it not demonstrate the totally inadequate way in which the Modernisation Committee, of which I am certainly the longest-serving member, considered the matter? I should add that the motion that we are debating emerged from that Committee as a result of the casting vote of the Chairman, who is a Labour Cabinet Minister.

David Heath: Precisely. I think we would be debating very different proposals today had the Modernisation Committee done its job properly and presented sensible proposals to the House.
	The Committee for the south-east is another glaring example, but different considerations apply in that instance. Its composition would benefit not the Liberal Democrats but the Conservatives. If properly represented on the Committee, the Conservatives would have six members. They would be in the majority, because the majority of constituencies in the region are represented by Conservative Members of Parliament. The Labour party should have just two representatives, but it is to have five. It is to have the majority in the south-east as well, because that is how the Government have decided to present their proposal.

Chris Bryant: I know that the hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Modernisation Committee, although other Liberal Democrats were. On 24 occasions the Liberal Democrats voted with the Labour Committee members. As the hon. Gentleman says, the main issue on which they disagreed with the Government was that of the proportion, but he has also made an assumption about the casting vote. Some may understand the casting vote to constitute a second vote for a member of the Committee, and that is the case in the House of Lords. However, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows, in the House of Commons it is only when there is equality of voices that the Chair has a vote.

David Heath: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that helpful exposition of what happened in the Modernisation Committee. The casting vote of a Cabinet Minister determined that the Labour party's view would prevail, and that the views of all the Opposition parties were to be disregarded.
	When we debated this matter on an earlier occasion, I expressed a genuine fear that one of the consequences of the composition that the Government were proposing was that Labour members would have to be drafted in from other regions. The Government have avoided thatthe names before us do not come from regions other than those that they would be asked to scrutinisebut the only way they could avoid it was by drafting members of the Government on to the Committees. So we are to have members of the Governmentparliamentary private secretariesscrutinising the Government.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Truro and St. Austell (Matthew Taylor) drew attention to one of the most glaring examples of that, again in the south-west, where some of our biggest issues relate to transport. The second strategic route to the south-west, the improvement of the A303 and the electrification of the Great Western railway line are major issues of infrastructure which the Select Committee would have to consider, but we are to have the Secretary of State for Transport sitting on one side of it and his PPS sitting on the other, no doubt asking him searching questions about what they will have discussed earlier in the departmental office.

Bob Laxton: Decisions on the big transport issues in the south-west, such as rail and road links, are almost always made by the South West of England regional development agency, and even when it does not make the decisions, huge influence is exerted on the decision-making process by the RDA.

David Heath: And, it must be said, by the Secretary of State for Transport, who is to be represented on the Committee that is scrutinising him. However, that situation is not unique. I note that the hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), who is present, is named as one of the members of the north-east regional Select Committee, and he is unique: he is the only one who is not a PPS. Four of the five Committee members are part of the Government, while the fifth, the hon. Gentleman, alone represents the independent voice of the north-east. The Deputy Leader of the House accepted that there might be conflicts of interest. Circumstances might arise in which all four PPSs had to leave the room and the hon. Gentleman would be on his own. He would be a splendid scrutineer on his own, but is that any way to set up a Committee of this House?

Alan Beith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for drawing attention to that point. Would it not be helpful if the Deputy Leader of the House presented an alternative motion allowing the only non-PPSsthe hon. Member for Tyne Bridge (Mr. Clelland), the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson) and meto do the job? We could save quite a lot of money, and avoid the necessity for motions such as this.

David Heath: That is a splendid suggestion, but I do not see any scrawled manuscript amendments being presented. Who knows, though? Perhaps a motion that we have not debated will be put to the vote later. These things happen in the House nowadays.

George Young: Is it not the case that when the PPSs withdrew, there would be a quorum problem?

David Heath: There will be a quorum problem in any case, because there will be only five Labour members. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) made a valid point when he asked when and where the Committees would meet. Will they perambulate around the country? Will they meet at times when Parliament is not sitting? It will be extremely difficult for an assiduous parliamentarian to find time to go out to the regions in order to attend Committee meetings.

Stephen Williams: rose

Andrew Stunell: rose

David Heath: I have a choice of hon. Friends to whom to give way, but I will give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, West (Stephen Williams).

Stephen Williams: Does my hon. Friend consider that putting PPSs on Select Committees represents a change in Government practice? During my first two and a half years or so as a Member of Parliament, I was a member of the Education and Skills Committee and, subsequently, the Children, Schools and Families Committee. On each occasion that a Labour member of the Committee became a PPS, he or she had to withdraw from the Committee.

David Heath: That is true. We used to have rules about these things. We asked the Government Chief Whip for a list of PPSs, and he was not prepared to provide one. Apparently it is a secret. That may be because there are so many resignations each day that the Government cannot keep up, but the fact remains that they would not provide us with a list of the PPSs who are currently serving in the Government so that we could do our research. We had to deal with each one separately.

Andrew Stunell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the appointment of PPSs may pose a further problem? It is not just a question of holding them to account at the main Committee meetings; all the informal and private meetings at which the Committee prepares itself for those meetings will be prejudiced and put at risk. It will be very difficult for any PPS to keep the necessary Chinese walls in place.

David Heath: I think it will be very difficult for a PPS to do his duty both to the Committee and to his Minister. He or she will be privy to information that will be relevant to the Minister whom he or she serves; on the other hand, he or she will be privy to information from the Department that the Committee really ought to hear. If PPSs disagree with their Ministers, is that a resigning matter? Will they be forced to resign as a result of reports from their Committees? These are untested waters.

Peter Soulsby: May I recommend to the hon. Gentleman an excellent Library note on the issue of PPSs serving on Select Committees? I came across it by chance recently. Although the hon. Gentleman is making much of the issue, if he reads the Library note he will discover that it is not a new issue but one with which the House has wrestled many times over the years, and that PPSs have sat on Select Committees under all Governments of different colours.

David Heath: I do not believe that there has ever been a circumstance in which a PPS has been asked to scrutinise the work of the Department in which he or she serves. I honestly believe that that is the case, but if the hon. Gentleman has evidence to the contrary I shall be happy to hear it.

Peter Soulsby: As the Deputy Leader of the House indicated earlier, in the event of such a circumstance arising, it would be easy for the particular PPS to withdraw and not to take part in the business. The overwhelming argument for having regional Select Committees is to scrutinise the work of regional development agencies, where PPSs would not be directly involved, would not have such a conflict of interest and would not need to withdraw.

David Heath: If all we are doing is trying to provide democratic accountability for regional development agencies, let us do that and not go through this regional Select Committee system, which is supposed to deal with matters on a wider front; according to the Deputy Leader of the House, that is what this is all about. I must not be drawn on the functions of those Committees, because I would go wide of the motion, but I think I have made the point adequately about PPSs. It is a real concern. For that reason, if for no other, I recommend to my right hon. and hon. Friends that they do not support the motions.
	It is simply unacceptable that we have these hole-and-corner Committees of Labour Members wandering around the country. They will be stuffed full of Government Members pretending to scrutinise our regional structures, but not doing so effectivelya cabal that will have no credibility, either in the House or outside, and no accountability, because it will not represent the wider region that it is purporting to represent.
	It is a meaningless innovation that the Government are pushing ahead with without consensus, because they do not understand consensus, and without any understanding of accountability, because they never give away a scintilla of power. They have to control everything from the centre and from the Whips Office. It will not do for this House or for the regions of this country.

Nicholas Winterton: I endorse everything that has been said by the spokesman for the Liberal Democrat party and by the Front-Bench spokesman for my party. In opposing the appointment of the Labour Members to these Select Committees, may I say that the departmental Select Committees do an excellent job? They could well undertake all the functions that will be carried out by the new regional Select Committees. As someone with some experience of Select Committees over many years, going back to the 1970s, I have to say that in recent years the departmental Select Committees and other long-established Select Committees of the House have on occasions found it very difficult to achieve a quorum. If we are going to establish another eight Committees that are manned, if I may use that phrase, only by Membersmen and women of the House; the word manned covers thatthere will be grave difficulty not only in obtaining quorums for the regional Select Committees, but in obtaining quorums for the departmental and other long-established Select Committees of the House.
	I want to repeat this point, because I believe it is important that the history of the proposal be fully understood by the House and by those who will read the report of the proceedings of the House, referring not only perhaps to the vote in November but to the vote that will take place here tonight. The Modernisation Committee passed to the House the resolution for the setting up of regional Select Committees on the casting vote of a Government Ministerthe Leader of the House. I personally believe, and I have studied the matter since the debate in November, that a majority of the evidence was against the establishment of regional Select Committees.
	I have mentioned the difficulty of getting sufficient Members to serve on Committees or to turn up at Select Committee meetings. I must also point out, briefly, that the House is going to have to incur expenditure of more than 2 million at this time of financial difficulty.  [Interruption.] Oh yes. It is indeed 2 million. That expenditure will be incurred to staff the Committees, to cover the costs of the Committees, the travel of the Committees and the expenses of the Committees. Even if it is just under 2 million, to my mind it is expenditure that we should not incur when the people of this country are having to face a financial crisis.

Peter Soulsby: As one of the hon. Gentleman's colleagues on the Modernisation Committee, I too heard the evidence that was given to us. Does he recall that the overwhelming majority of that evidence was firmly in favour of the establishment of proper scrutiny at a regional level, and that the amount of money that he is talking about is very small compared with the 2.3 billion spent every year by regional development agencies alone?

Nicholas Winterton: rose

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman responds, I ask him to work out just how that point relates to the motion before the House and the membership of the Committees.

Nicholas Winterton: I can say very clearly that every member of the regional Select Committee will incur expenditure. They will want to travel to the region that the Committee is supposed to represent and to cover. There will be travelling costs and accommodation costs. I also refer to the extremely heavy cost, much of it justified, of the excellent Clerks department that we have in the House, and to the fact that the Clerks are, rightly, very well remunerated staff of the House. There will therefore be considerable expenditure. I give way to the Deputy Leader of the House, who I am sure is going to try to correct the figures that I have cited.

Chris Bryant: I thought that I would. The hon. Gentleman is very kind. The figure that has been provided by the House is 1.135 million.

Nicholas Winterton: Because they will come forward in due course, I was of course referring to the regional Grand Committees as well. I can say to the Members of the House, as I say to the Deputy Leader of the House, that I have never known an estimate of this House that has not been exceeded in the reality.

Andrew MacKinlay: I understand that the members of the Clerks department who have been selected to fulfil the clerkship of these Committees are double-hatted. I stumbled across this business

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that we are having enough difficulty establishing the membership from Members of this Chamber, without having to worry about the Clerks department.

Andrew MacKinlay: May I explain?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: No, I think that we will move on.

Nicholas Winterton: I had hoped and felt sure that the hon. Gentleman was going to be helpful, but naturally, Mr. Deputy Speaker, your word is law.

David Heath: I hope that I can be helpful. So that the hon. Gentleman can relate the figure that he has given to the membership that is before us, I can tell him that it works out at 50,000 per Labour Member, or 30,000 if we take the figure from the Deputy Leader of the House.

Nicholas Winterton: That is a very helpful intervention, for which I shall be eternally grateful to the hon. Gentleman. It is entirely wrong that that expenditure per head should be incurred. Members have been nominated by some magic circle to regional Select Committees. It has been done by the Government party. It is extraordinary that, as we scrap the regional assemblies, we are setting up here in the House other bodies to supervise the regions. The assemblies originally comprisedthis was the hopepeople who were very knowledgeable about the given area, and had considerable business or local government experience. All these matters are much more relevant to local government than they are to the House.

Julia Goldsworthy: Is it not the case that the regional assemblies were abandoned because they were not directly accountable and were seen as too remote from the regions? Can the hon. Gentleman imagine why anyone would think that regional Select Committees were any more directly accountable, or any closer to the regions that they were supposed to scrutinise?

Nicholas Winterton: In my long time in this House, I have never known the Liberal Democrats to be so helpful to a Conservative and Unionist Member. The hon. Lady's point is entirely relevant.
	May I also say that I am a huge believer in this Chamber of the House of Commons? To my mind, this is the Chamber where Members of Parliament should be in attendanceI hesitate to use the word manned again, as I may upset the Deputy Leader of the House.
	This proposal to set up the regional Select Committees will take away more Membersand there are few enough of them nowfrom the Chamber, which should be the core of the activities of a Member of Parliament. Perhaps, however, the Government want that, to enable them to get their ill-considered and badly debated legislation through the House even faster.

Andrew MacKinlay: Biblically, our Lord was only twice in two places at the same time, but what is going to be required of Members who serve on the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee or the Foreign Affairs Committee and on a regional Select Committee at the same time? It is really a miracle.

Nicholas Winterton: It is a miracle, and the hon. Gentleman has stolen my next three or four sentences, so I will not repeat what he has said. He is absolutely right, however: this Parliament will lose out by this proposal. I wish those on our Front Bench would vote against every motion on the Order Paper rather than take them all together, in order to show how much the people who are committed to this House disapprove of what the Government are doing in its name. It is a shame and it is diabolical. It will be bad for the House; I strongly oppose it and will vote against it in the Division at the end of the debate.

George Young: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), and I would like to add a brief footnote to the excellent points he has just made.
	The Deputy Leader of the House put forward an argument in his opening speech about the legitimacy of Parliamentary Private Secretaries serving on these Select Committees. The argument he deployed was that, because Front-Bench Opposition spokesmen sat on Select Committees, it was legitimate for PPSs to do so, but there is a fundamental difference between a PPS and an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, in that a PPS owes his loyalty to the Government, whereas an Opposition Front-Bench spokesman does not. Therefore, in terms of holding the Executive to account, it is simply not the case that a PPS can be equated with a Front-Bench spokesman. It is a fundamental misconception to put the two on a par.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield made a point about quorums, and there is at present a real problem with quorums on Select Committees. The Sessional Returns show the pressure that the existing Select Committees are already under, and that will be made worse by the appointment of eight more Select Committees. The Public Accounts Committee is, perhaps, the most prestigious Select Committee, and it had an average attendance of 47.2 per cent. In other words, for most of the time most of its members were not present. The Regulatory Reform Committee had a 42.3 per cent. attendance rate, and the rate for the Environmental Audit Committee was 44.5 per cent. Some Select Committees are at present having real difficulties in meeting their quorum, and that will be aggravated if Members who already sit on Select Committees are put on additional ones.
	Two of the Members nominated for the south-east regional Select Committee are already on two Select Committees and their resources will, inevitably, be stretched even further. One Member who is already so heavily committed that he or she was unable to attend one of the 12 meetings of a Select Committee on which he or she already sits is being put on a regional Select Committee. In my Select Committee, a Member was unable to attend for a long time for the perfectly good reason that he was on another Select Committee that met at exactly the same time. There is a real risk that in trying to set up these regional Committees, we will undermine the good work of those Select Committees that are already up and running.
	I understand the doctrine of the mandate. A resolution came from a Select Committee, the Government got a majority for that proposition in the House, and therefore they can go on. If we look at the votes on 12 November, however, a slightly different picture emerges. One resolution was carried by two votesand I have to say to the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) that if he had voted the other way on that one, there would have been a tie on the proportion of Members from each party representing constituencies in each region. The hon. Gentleman voted with my party and other parties on the pay of Select Committee Chairmen, but on some of the other ones I am afraid that he voted in the other Lobby.
	There is a key difference between resolutions that deal with Select Committees and resolutions that are delivering the Government's manifesto. It is my experience that when reforms have been made to Select Committees and how they work, we have tried to do that by consensus and taking the other parties with us. There is a risk that, far from advancing the policy of the Government for the regions, having five out of nine Members, at best, going round the country, and all from one party, will do an injury to the vestiges of the regional policy that they still retain.
	What the Government should have done was ask themselves, With 15 months to the next general election, how important is it that we drive this reform through a divided House of Commons, and send Select Committees, with half their members not present, round the country, in the name of regionalism? Would it not have been more sensible to have said, Actually, we have other things to do at the moment. There are other ways of employing Members' time. There are other reforms in the House of Commons that have a greater priority. Therefore, we will just park this one and not proceed with it? If the Government had done that, we would all have understood: we would have applauded the wisdom, and we would have recognised that they had reflected on the very narrow votes that took place on 12 November and decided not to go ahead.
	When these Committees start their work, I wonder how many times they will meet. I also wonder what practical work they will be able to do between now and the next general election, without at the same time undermining
	 One and a half hours having elapsed since the commencement of proceedings on the Business of the House motion, the Deputy Speaker put the Question (Order, this day).

The House divided: Ayes 257, Noes 190.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Ordered,
	That Mr David Drew, Linda Gilroy, Kerry McCarthy, Dr Doug Naysmith and Alison Seabeck be members of the South West Regional Select Committee.
	 The Deputy Speaker then put the remaining Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that time.

regional select committee (East of England)

Ordered,
	That Mr Charles Clarke, Dr Ian Gibson, Patrick Hall, Margaret Moran and Mr Anthony Wright be members of the East of England Regional Select Committee.( Chris Bryant .)

regional select committee (West Midlands)

Ordered,
	That Mr Adrian Bailey, Richard Burden, Mr David Kidney, Mr James Plaskitt and Joan Walley be members of the West Midlands Regional Select Committee.( Chris Bryant .)

regional select committee (south East)

Ordered,
	That Ms Celia Barlow, Dr Stephen Ladyman, David Lepper, Gwyn Prosser and Mr Andrew Smith be members of the South East Regional Select Committee.( Chris Bryant .)

regional select committee (north East)

Ordered,
	That Mr David Anderson, Mr David Clelland, Mrs Sharon Hodgson, Ms Dari Taylor and Phil Wilson be members of the North East Regional Select Committee.( Chris Bryant .)

regional select committee (north West)

Ordered,
	That Rosie Cooper, Mr David Crausby, Tony Lloyd, Mr Eric Martlew and Geraldine Smith be members of the North West Regional Select Committee.( Chris Bryant .)

regional select committee (Yorkshire and the humber)

Ordered,
	That Mr Clive Betts, Mr Ian Cawsey, Mary Creagh, Mr Eric Illsley and Shona McIsaac be members of the Yorkshire and the Humber Regional Select Committee.( Chris Bryant .)

regional select committee (East midlands)

Ordered,
	That Mr John Heppell, Mr Bob Laxton, Judy Mallaber, Sir Peter Soulsby and Paddy Tipping be members of the East Midlands Regional Select Committee.( Chris Bryant .)

Select Committees (Chairmen), Liaison Committee and Green Book

Chris Bryant: I beg to move,
	That this House expresses the opinion that the Resolution of the House of 30 October 2003, relating to Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees (No. 2), should be further amended by inserting, after (Select Committees related to government departments), the words Standing Order No. 152G (Committee on Members' Allowances).

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss the following:
	Motion 14 Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees (No. 2)
	That the Resolution of the House of 30 October 2003, relating to Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees (No. 2), be further amended by inserting, after (Select Committees related to government departments), the words Standing Order No. 152G (Committee on Members' Allowances).
	Motion 15 Liaison Committee (Membership)
	That the Resolution of the House of 13 July 2005 relating to Liaison Committee (Membership) be further amended in paragraph (2) by inserting, in the appropriate place, 'Committee on Members' Allowances'.
	Motion 16 Green Book (Committee on Members' Allowances)
	(1) That the Green Book which was approved by this House on 22 January be amended
	(a) in Parts I to III, by substituting, for each reference to the Advisory Panel on Members' Allowances or to the Finance and Services Committee, a reference to the Committee on Members' Allowances, and
	(b) in Part IV, by leaving out the definitions of Advisory Panel on Members' Allowances and Finance and Services Committee and inserting after the definition of Civil Partner
	'Committee on Members' Allowances' means the Committee appointed under Standing Order No. 152G;
	(2) That Standing Order No. 152G (Committee on Members' Allowances) be amended, in paragraph (1), by inserting after sub-paragraph (b):
	(c) to approve practice notes to be used in administering Members' allowances which may be issued by the House; and
	(d) to determine (subject to any appeal to the Members Estimate Committee) the application of the rules in such individual cases as may be referred to them by hon. Members, in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Committee;
	(3) That Standing Order No. 152D (House of Commons Members Estimate Committee) be amended, in paragraph (3), by inserting after sub-paragraph (d);
	(e) to consider appeals against determinations made by the Committee on Members' Allowances under paragraph (1)(d) of Standing Order No. 152G.

Chris Bryant: There are four motions before us in this debate, and I shall deal with them in reverse order.
	Motion 16 amends the new Green Book that the House agreed on 22 January in one regard. The Green Book specifies that Department of Resources staff have the authority to administer the rules as set out in the Green Book, but that if any issue is unresolved
	the Member may ask the Finance and Services Committee to rule.
	It also says that the Finance and Services Committee
	will agree Practice Notes which will be used by the Department in administering the rules.
	In the debate on 22 January, the Chairman of the 1922 Committee, the hon. Member for West Worcestershire (Sir Michael Spicer), who is not in his place at present, asked whether this should not be altered in the light of the fact that on that same day we changed the Advisory Panel on Members' Allowances into a formal Committee of the House, with a clear remit to look at every aspect of Members' allowances.
	On reflection, I believe that the Chairman of the 1922 Committee was right, for two reasons. First, as hon. Members will know, although the House of Commons Commission, chaired by the Speaker, is the overall supervisory body for the administration of the House, the House's expenditure is divided between two accounts, or estimatesto use the parliamentary jargon. The first, the Administration estimate, covers the costs of administration of the House. The second, the Members estimate, covers MPs' pay and allowances. Our Standing Orders state that the Finance and Services Committee oversees the Administration estimate and that the Members Estimate Committee oversees, naturally enough, the Members estimate. As the Finance and Services Committee has no remit under Standing Orders to look at the Members Estimate, which includes allowances, it seems wrong for it to have this new role in adjudicating on issue relating to Members' allowances.
	Secondly, having just created the new Committee on Members' Allowances, it clearly makes sense to give it the full responsibility for these issues, and that is precisely what motion 16 does. That in no respect alters the duties, powers or responsibilities of the Committee on Standards and Privileges, nor of the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards as set out in out Standing Orders. I hope that the Chairman of the Committee on Standards and Privileges will be content that the relationship between the two Committees will not leave hon. Members open to double jeopardy, or lead to the danger that the House cannot administer its discipline properly.
	The other motions before us are also straightforward. Motion 15 would put the Chairman of the Committee on Members' Allowances on the Liaison Committeea matter that I have discussed with the Chairman of the Liaison Committee, the Father of the House. Motions 13 and 14 would provide for the Chairman of the Committee to be paid, in common with all other Chairmen of Select Committees, other than the regional Committees, whose Chairmen will not be paid. I hope that the motions can be carried with little further ado.

Alan Duncan: I am grateful to the Deputy Leader of the House for explaining the motions so clearly. We are largely content with them, and I do not need to repeat what he said. They are largely consequential on the adoption of the new Green Book. They put the Committee on Members' Allowances into line with other Select Committees by providing for the payment of the Chairman and putting him or her on the Liaison Committee.
	I wish to dwell on only one matter of detailon which I agreed with the Deputy Leader of the Houseto amplify the assurance that he has just given my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young) about the continuing and unchanged status of the Committee on Standards and Privileges. The danger that loomed for a little while was that the potential reference to the new Committee of disputes between Members and officials of the House about what was a legitimate claim might somehow usurp the existing authority of my right hon. Friend's Committee.
	The concern arises from the recommendation on the revised Green Book in the report by the Members Estimate Committee, which said:
	We recommend that, for disputes over what is an acceptable claim which cannot be resolved between officials and the Member concerned, the Member should be able to ask the Finance and Services Committee
	now the Committee on Members' Allowances
	to rule, and should have the option of appealing to the Members Estimate Committee.
	The potential implication is that any such adjudication could be taken as final, and any dispute or complaint could not be referred to my right hon. Friend's Committee. The Deputy Leader of the House has made it clear that that would not be the case, and even though the Committee on Members' Allowances might have said that a Member's claim was justified, it could still go to the Committee on Standards and Privileges for its decision.
	It is obvious that if a Member, having talked to officials and taken the issue to the Committee on Members' Allowances, had reached a conclusion on a matter, the Committee on Standards and Privileges would take that into account. Therefore, the effect could well be to weed out smaller disputes and resolve them at that level, thus avoiding complaints and investigations into Members on what may be honest differences about how the rules should apply.
	My reason for mentioning this issue in further detail is to ensure that the House can enjoy clarity about the practice that it will now follow, and to ensure that those who observe our proceedings cannot deliberately make mischief by trying to play one Committee off against another. It is essential that the hierarchy of adjudication is understood by people inside and outside the House, and that no mischief can be made as a result. It should be understood that the first port of call will be the Committee on Members' Allowances, followed by some sort of appeal. That will largely be the case if a Member has submitted an invoice against their claimin other words, it is a live issue rather than an historic investigation. In such cases, the Fees Officeas we used to call it, but it is now the Department of Resources or somethingmight say, Hold on, you're over-egging it a bit, that doesn't fall within the rules. Such altercations can be resolved at that stage. We need to be clear that we are looking at a sensible ladder of adjudication in the event of disagreement.

Chris Bryant: The shadow Leader of the House is making some important and sensible clarifications. The one thing that is still important is that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and the Committee should always be able to look at cases where there has not been full disclosure. An hon. Member might have been in a disagreementthe hon. Gentleman uses the word altercation, but I shall call it a disagreement without fisticuffswith the Department of Resources, and that might go on to the Committee on Members' Allowances and then to the Members Estimate Committee or the Commission. However, the commissioner and the Committee would still want to investigate all the facts in any disciplinary process. If there had been a failure of disclosure, no cover would be provided by the fact that one had been before one of the previous Committees.

Alan Duncan: The Deputy Leader of the House helpfully describes a possible set of circumstances in which these Committees would have to operate. The very short discussion that we have had has been helpful and I hope that it can lie on the record to guide people in the future so that they do not misunderstand our proceedings. I have nothing further to add and I hope that the House will adopt these motions tonight.

Andrew MacKinlay: I think that if you, Madam Deputy Speaker, look at the official record tomorrow, you, or any other observer, will note that neither the Deputy Leader of the House nor the shadow Leader of the House mentioned the contents of motions 13 and 14 [ Interruption. ] They certainly did not do so in substance, although the Deputy Leader of the House says that they did. I shall look at the record tomorrow.

Chris Bryant: I shall say it again for my hon. Friend, if he wants. Motions 13 and 14 would provide for the Chairman of the Committee to be paid, in common with all the other Chairmen of Select Committees other than the regional Select Committees. We need to have two motions because the first involves the House saying that we should do so while the second involves the Queen's assent.

Andrew MacKinlay: I intend to divide the House on this point, because I believe that it is wrong in principle. I explained to the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), who would be the beneficiary of the motions, that it was nothing personal. I hope that he and the House will notice that I have argued consistently against the growth of additional emoluments for other Members in this House. I see this as another increment, and it is extremely unhealthy. In November, the House was with me, by a majority of two, in preventing the payment to Chairpersons of the regional Select Committees. I was very pleased about that, and I think that it was right. We have to bring a halt to this. Although the motion is a one-off and relates to one particular chairmanship, it is simply wrong.
	That matter goes to the heart of our democracy and is creating two tiers of Members of Parliament. I understand from an answer that I received to a parliamentary question that, from memory, some 160 Members are paid differently from Back Benchers. We have to put a halt to that. If I win tonight, it will be unfortunate for the right hon. Member for Islwyn, but we need to put on the brakes.

Hugo Swire: I have no desire for the hon. Gentleman to be dazzled by my halo, but as the Chairman of the Speaker's Advisory Committee on Works of Art, I can tell him that there are some Committees of which it is a great honour to be Chairman and in which we are not remunerated at all.

Andrew MacKinlay: That intervention demonstrates how ludicrous it is that we are doing this without an overall plan or strategy. I am not saying, Never. The hon. Gentleman is Chairman of a very important Committee. There are people who lead the Council of Europe delegation, which is a very substantial responsibility, who do not get any emoluments

Alan Duncan: The shadow Cabinet.

Andrew MacKinlay: I was coming to the shadow Cabinet. In an earlier debate, I predicted that there would be a gradualist approach. It becomes compelling, because each time we add to the list there are greater anomalies. I have said before in the Chamber that the shadow Cabinet will seek such remuneration, that the Liberals will then say that that is unfair, and that the Council of Europe delegations, the leadership of the British-Irish parliamentary body, the leadership of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe parliamentary body and so on will follow. It has to stop at some stage.

Hugo Swire: I am rather in agreement with the hon. Gentleman, but does he not agree that it is even more important now, when we are being accused by the tabloid press and so on of having our noses in the trough at a time of an economic recession if not a depression, that we are creating yet another paid sinecure in the Palace of Westminster?

Andrew MacKinlay: Yes. I try to discharge my duties as a Back-Bench MP, as I see themin a sense, I write my own job descriptionto the best of my ability. I believe that I work as hard and have as many difficulties, although they are different difficulties, as the Under-Secretary of State for paperclips and statutes, who would be paid under our system. The exception, paradoxically, consists of the Deputy Leader of the House and a few others. I was a trade union official and I believe in the rate for the job, and I am astounded that there are folk who are prepared to be Ministers without pay when others get it, but that is a matter for them. I want to stop the rot, the stealth and the salami-slicing whereby we are gradually raising the proportion of MPs who are paid more than others. I urge Members to reflect on that.
	I hope that the hon. Member for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch, East (Rosemary McKenna) does not take it personally, but I understand that the Chairperson of the Committee of Selection already has the higher emoluments. I am open to correction on that point, but I cannot remember one hell of a row on the Committee of Selection and I am not sure that it sits for a very long time. I use that to buttress my case: there is no coherent logic to the question of payments. That is why we have to stop it now. A prudent and fair system might be for the appropriate Committees to reflect on this matter in time for the next Parliament, so that some sensible and fair decisions can be made.
	I remember when we were discussing the principle behind these payments a year and a half ago, the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Sir Nicholas Winterton), who is not in his place, asked where else people did not get increments for their length of service. A case could probably be made for the length of service as a criterionI want to make it quite clear that I am not advocating that, but we need to consider these issues. The chairmanships of Committees are, at present, largely within the patronage of the political party managements. The hon. Member for East Devon (Mr. Swire) does a fine job on our arts committee, and the role is not highly contestedin fact, nobody is more suitably qualified than he is by virtue of his previous employment and experiencebut he has, nevertheless, been anointed by the movers and shakers in this House. The Deputy Leader of the House screws up his face at that, but I am being polite. There are movers and shakers in this House, and they are largely made up from those on the Front Benches.
	The chairmanships of so many Committees are filled by people who hitherto were Ministers. It is a way of letting them down gently. We were told by many hon. Members that there needed to be an alternative career structureI do not like the termso that instead of becoming Ministers Members could aspire to be parliamentarians and Chairs of Select Committees and other Committees. That was going to be the alternative to people always wanting to be Ministers. There is no demonstration that that is happening. Indeed, the present incumbent of the very important post in the Committee on Members' Allowances is an ex-Minister. That is unhealthy. I am not prepared to acquiesce by my silence. It is unfair to Members and to the public, and it is time that we drew a line under this and got things right for the next Parliament.

Hugo Swire: Just for the record, I want to point out that I do not think that those from either Front Bench are ever involved in the selection of the Speaker's Advisory Committee on Works of Art. Indeed, we all serve at the Speaker's will.

Andrew MacKinlay: I fully accept that. Interestingly enough, I expressed an interest in joining this Committee, but once again I was not appointed. Just because I am paranoid, that does not mean that that they are not after me. There is always some discrimination when certain hon. Members seek appointments, based on a dislike of their conduct or style, or of what they say and how they say it. It is really unhealthy for the body politic and the democratic process in this House when Members are rewarded with sinecures and significant payments.
	I intend to divide the House on this matter. I urge colleagues to join me in the Lobby to vote against the proposition that the hon. Member chairing the Committee on Members' Allowances should be paid. I oppose that, although I can see the compelling logic of motion 15, which proposes that he be on the Liaison Committee.

David Heath: There is no need to take long over this, but some important points need to be made. The exchange between the Deputy Leader of the House and the shadow Leader of the House was extremely helpful in setting out the anticipated relationship between the various tiers of appeal, and I shall be interested, Madam Deputy Speaker, to hear what the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir George Young), the Chair of the Standards and Privileges Committee, has to say if he succeeds in catching your eye in a moment. However, I hope that what has been set out will satisfy him that the role of his Committee remains clear and undiminished when it comes to investigating, and adjudicating on, hon. Members when they are in error.
	We are only having this debate because of a minor error anyway, as the proposals that we are debating should have been included when we last discussed these matters. They were not and, although I can understand why they were overlooked, it is unfortunate that parliamentary time has to be taken up with consequential amendments to a package that the House has determined already. It is not my intention, therefore, to raise issues with the corrections and amendmentsone might call them erratathat the Deputy Leader of the House has brought forward today, and I await the comments of the right hon. Member for North-West Hampshire on the matter.
	I have to say that I agree with the point made by with the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay). This is a free-vote matter, and I shall not give advice to my right hon. and hon. Friends, but the hon. Gentleman knows that I have joined him consistently in the Lobby when it has come up. There is an expectation that more and more ways will be found to pay Members of this House on top of their parliamentary salaries. Very soon, we will reach the point where the only people in the House who do not receive a top-up of some kind will be the members of the two Opposition Front Bencheswith the exception of the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservatives' Chief Whip and Deputy Chief Whipthe Deputy Leader of the House, and the hon. Member for Thurrock.
	We will be the only ones on the basic salary, and we should be proud of that, although I am not sure that the system that I have described necessarily represents value to the House in terms of work rate, or a sensible way to use public funds. However, I am quite sure that the impression given to the public every time that we add another person to the list is that Members of Parliament are yet again feathering their own nests. That is something to be concerned about.
	I have nothing against the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig), who I am sure will do a very good job of chairing the Committee, but I am not sure that the new Committee's work is comparable with that of the departmental Select Committees. They meet probably twice a week to take evidence and do all the other work that they have to do, whereas the Committee on Members' Allowances will have an important but limited role.
	The intention behind the Committee is to reduce the costs to the House, so it is a little odd that the very first action is to add another salary to those costs. Some people might see that as ironic.
	Unlike the hon. Member for Thurrock, I am not persuaded that the Chairman of the Committee on Members' Allowances should necessarily be on the Liaison Committee. That Committee is becoming very big and extensive: its job is to co-ordinate the Committees of this House so that they do not fall over one another, but it has one other scrutiny functionto interrogate the Prime Minister of the day. I am not sure that adding to it more and more members who do not have departmental responsibilities is a good idea. We should be wary of simply accepting that anyone in this House who bears the title Chairman must join the Liaison Committee, because I am not sure that that is helpful for scrutiny or for the comparability of various roles in the House.
	Even so, I am not going to argue about that or divide the House on the matter this evening but, if the hon. Member for Thurrock calls a Division on the question of pay, I shall join him in the Lobby because I think that this is a point about which we should put down markers. That is what I did earlier in respect of the regional Select Committees, and I have done so before when other Committee chairmanships have been added to the list. I feel that we are seeing a sort of creeping exceptionalism, in which the exception is proving to be the rule. I do not think that that is a sensible way for us to proceed.

George Young: To pick up a point made earlier by the hon. Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay), I think that it would be difficult to say that every Select Committee Chairman shall be paid except this one. I understand where he and the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) are coming from, but the principle has been conceded already. Moreover, I suspect that the new Committee will be quite important and busy, so it would be unfair to say that every Select Committee Chairman shall be paid but not the one who chairs the Committee on Members' Allowances. Therefore, if there is a Division, I shall be in the opposite Lobby from the hon. Member for Thurrock. That may not happen often. I welcome the appointment of the right hon. Member for Islwyn (Mr. Touhig) to the Liaison Committee. Many of the matters that we discuss may impinge on the responsibilities of his Committee and it will be useful to have him there.
	I want to add a footnote to the very helpful exchange that we heard earlier, and to set out my concern when I saw what was on the Order Paper. Motion 16(2)(d) makes it clear that the Committee on Members' Allowances will determine
	'the application of the rules in such individual cases as may be referred to them by hon. Members, in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Committee'.
	The question arises how that fits in with the existing procedurewhat one might call the post-Nolan settlement, whereby we established an independent parliamentary commissioner reporting to the Standards and Privileges Committee, which published his findings on any complaint, along with the conclusions. At first sight, that sentence seems to take away from the existing Committee and the commissioner the responsibility for seeing whether the rules on allowances had been broken, and gives it to the new Committeehence the concern that I expressed in the amendment that has not been selected.
	It is important that the House of Commons retains those elements that we now have. Indeed, the other place may be looking at such a structure to resolve some of the difficultiesthe Deputy Leader of the House is looking worried already. I give way.

Chris Bryant: I was not looking worried. I am never worried when the right hon. Gentleman is on his feet. I was merely going to say that some hon. Members may have misunderstood, possibly because there is an element of ambiguity in motion 16, paragraph (2)(d). The expectation of the Committees that originally proposed the reference to
	the application of the rules in such individual cases as may be referred to them by hon. Members
	was not that one hon. Member would refer an issue about another hon. Member to the Committee, but that a Member would refer a matter relating to his own allowances. That is very different from the expectation in the case of the right hon. Gentleman's Committee.

George Young: Yes, that takes part of the trick, but it does not resolve the fundamental problem. Even in those circumstances where a Member self-referred himself to the Members' Allowances Committee and got the go-ahead, there would still be the possibility of double jeopardy, to which the hon. Gentleman referred. The self-referring Member may well get the green light from the Members' Allowances Committee and go ahead. There may well be a complaint from a member of the public to the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards, who may well feel that there is a prima facie case and go ahead. There is an element of risk of double jeopardy.
	The answer is a good working relationship between my Committee, the commissioner and the new Committee, to make sure that we minimise the risk of double jeopardy. I personally welcome the establishment of the Committee, and I hope it will produce guidelines that clarify the rules and reduce the risk of Members making mistakes.
	I was reassured by the statement of the Deputy Leader of the House on the record that notwithstanding anything that may be before the House this evening, the duties, powers and responsibilities of the Committee on Standards and Privileges or the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards are not affected. It was enormously helpful to have that on the record, endorsed by my hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Melton (Alan Duncan). That takes the trick.
	There was concern on my Committee at the possibility of the Nolan settlement being picked away. Against the background of the assurances that I have been given, I am much happier than I was and I look forward to working with the right hon. Member for Islwyn and his Committee in driving up standards in the House.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Does the Deputy Leader of the House wish to reply to the debate?

Chris Bryant: I think the House has heard quite enough from me today, Madam Deputy Speaker.

Question put.
	 The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 73.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	 Resolved,
	That this House expresses the opinion that the Resolution of the House of 30 October 2003, relating to Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees (No. 2), should be further amended by inserting, after (Select Committees related to government departments), the words Standing Order No. 152G (Committee on Members' Allowances ).

pay for chairmen of select committees (no. 2)

Queen's recommendation signified.
	 Resolved,
	That the Resolution of the House of 30 October 2003, relating to Pay for Chairmen of Select Committees (No. 2), be further amended by inserting, after (Select Committees related to government departments), the words Standing Order No. 152G (Committee on Members' Allowances). (Mr. McAvoy.)

liaison committee (membership)

Resolved,
	That the Resolution of the House of 13 July 2005 relating to Liaison Committee (Membership) be further amended in paragraph (2) by inserting, in the appropriate place, 'Committee on Members' Allowances'. (Mr. McAvoy.)

green book (committee on Members' allowances)

Resolved,
	(1) That the Green Book which was approved by this House on 22 January be amended
	(a) in Parts I to III, by substituting, for each reference to the Advisory Panel on Members' Allowances or to the Finance and Services Committee, a reference to the Committee on Members' Allowances, and
	(b) in Part IV, by leaving out the definitions of Advisory Panel on Members' Allowances and Finance and Services Committee and inserting after the definition of Civil Partner
	'Committee on Members' Allowances' means the Committee appointed under Standing Order No. 152G;
	(2) That Standing Order No. 152G (Committee on Members' Allowances) be amended, in paragraph (1), by inserting after sub-paragraph (b):
	(c) to approve practice notes to be used in administering Members' allowances which may be issued by the House; and
	(d) to determine (subject to any appeal to the Members Estimate Committee) the application of the rules in such individual cases as may be referred to them by hon. Members, in accordance with procedures prescribed by the Committee;
	(3) That Standing Order No. 152D (House of Commons Members Estimate Committee) be amended, in paragraph (3), by inserting after sub-paragraph (d);
	(e) to consider appeals against determinations made by the Committee on Members' Allowances under paragraph (1)(d) of Standing Order No. 152G. (Mr. McAvoy.)

Business without Debate
	  
	delegated legislation

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Fees and Charges

That the draft Department for Transport (Fees) Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 22 January, be approved.

Official Statistics

That the draft Official Statistics Order 2009, which was laid before this House on 28 January, be approved .(Mr. McAvoy.)
	 Question agreed to.

european union documents

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 119(11)),

Mandates of EU Special Representatives

That this House takes note of an unnumbered explanatory memorandum dated 14 January 2009 from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on European Union Council Joint actions extending the mandates of the European Union Special Representatives for Bosnia and Herzegovina, Kosova, Macedonia, the African Great Lakes and Sudan; and supports the Government's policy of extending these mandates until 28 February 2010. (Mr. McAvoy.)
	 Question agreed to.

estimates

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 145),
	That this House agrees with the Report [26 February] of the Liaison Committee. (Mr. McAvoy.)
	 Question agreed to.

business of the House

Ordered,
	That, at the sitting on Thursday 12 March, the Speaker shall put the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the Motion in the name of Mr Edward Leigh relating to Public Accounts not later than three hours after their commencement or at six o'clock, whichever is the earlier; proceedings may continue after the moment of interruption; and Standing Order No. 41A (Deferred divisions) shall not apply. (Mr. McAvoy.)

PRIVATE JAMES SMITH

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn. (Mr. McAvoy.)

Brian Iddon: Many tragic stories have emerged from the two world wars of 1914 to 1918 and 1939 to 1945. Unbelievable numbers from the British Commonwealth and other men and women from across the world were lost in these conflicts. In my opinion, they were all people of great courage who were willing to put their lives on the line for this country and for freedom from tyranny.
	This is the tragic story of James SmithJimmy to his friendswho was born in 1891 at 77 Noble street, which today is in my constituency, and whose mother, Elizabeth, died just after he was born. He was brought up by his devoted maternal aunt, Eliza, and his uncle John in Great Lever in my constituency. Relatives Johnknown as Jackand Freda Hargreaves live in Great Lever today. Jack's mother was Jimmy Smith's cousin. Jimmy's story was brought to me by Charles Sandbach and Bill Miles, who are interested in military history and who are campaigning to have Jimmy Smith's name added to the Bolton roll of honour, which is kept in the ceremonial entrance to Bolton town hall.

Jim Devine: As my hon. Friend knows, the same individuals have been involved in getting the name of someone from my constituency on a roll in that hall. He was 27 years old, and died in 1917, and it was not until the work that these people did in identifying where he came from and his family background that that soldier's name was proudly was put on the war memorial.

Brian Iddon: I am grateful for that intervention; it is a story that has been told to me. Indeed, these two gentleman who are interested in military history made a one-hour film about a solidernot like the one I am talking about this eveningwho went through the tragedies of world war one. It is a brilliant film that ought to have a wider showing than it has hitherto.
	We want Jimmy to be remembered, along with his comrades, every year on Remembrance day. Jimmy was Charles Sandbach's paternal grandmother's uncle and Charles initially sought the help of my friend Councillor Frank White, former Member of Parliament for Bury and Radcliffe, who is currently president of the Bolton United Veteran's Association, formed in 1906 before the British Legion was established, the second of many such associations to be formed that still exist today.
	Private James Smith was the subject of a play, Early One Morning, written by Bolton playwright Les Smith and presented at the Octagon theatre in Bolton, with its first performance on 22 October 1998 to mark the 80th anniversary of the armistice. James Smith initially enlisted in the 1st Battalion Lancashire Fusiliers in 1910, just before his 19th birthday, to escape the grinding poverty in which he lived at that time. Although he hardly knew his father James William Smith, who remarried, Jimmy enlisted using his father's address in Noble street.
	2022 Private James Smith trained in Egypt, then served in Karachi, India, before being recalled when world war one was declared. Among his many horrific experiences of that war was the Lancashire landing on W beach at Gallipoli on the morning of 25 April 1915, when his battalion stormed a cliff bristling with Turkish machine guns. No fewer than six of his comrades won Victoria crosses before breakfaststill an all-time record for such awards. In scaling and taking that cliff, half the battalion were lost on that day.
	After enduring the rest of that nightmare campaign, Private James Smith was evacuated in 1916 to France, where he joined volunteers in the 15th Battalion Lancashire Fusiliers, known as the Salford pals. With one good conduct badge at that time, he was soon in the thick of the action again and gained a second good conduct badge. Such were the losses on the Somme that infantrymen were regularly transferred from one regiment to another, and Jimmy was transferred to the 17th Battalion King's Liverpool Regiment, known as the 1st Liverpool pals, on 26 June 1917, with the rank of lance corporal. He almost lost his life in France on the Somme when, on 11 October 1916, a massive German artillery shell buried him alive on the Transloy ridge, with bits of his friends around him, and shrapnel created a large deep wound on his right shoulder. According to his sister, it was big enough to put a fist in. Fortunately, he was rescued and taken home to Townleys hospital in Bolton, but in a very poor mental and physical state from which he never recovered. The shocks and horrors of the battles that he had seen had damaged him to such an extent that he was clearly unfit for further service. Those who served with him were well aware of his condition. Today, we would recognise that Jimmy Smith was suffering from serious post-traumatic stress disorder. No such condition was recognised in the great war, and it was believed that soldiers could recover from shell shock of that kind.
	Just 10 days after he returned to the front line, and clearly under a great deal of stress, Jimmy Smith volunteered to give up his stripe and became 52929 Private James Smith. Six days later, he left his post without orders. On 29 December 1916, Jimmy found himself before a field general court martial for a breach of military discipline. He was ordered to do 90 days' field punishment number one and lost one of his good conduct badges. On 15 July 1917, just before the battle of Passchendaele in the Ypres salient, he found himself before a field general court martial for a second time for going absent without leave. He was only 26 years old.
	We believe that the court recognised that Private James Smith was in no condition to fight. It spared him a death sentence on that second occasion and ordered him again to do 90 days' field punishment number one, and he lost his second good conduct badge. Unfortunately, the Army never allowed Jimmy to complete that sentence, because the 17th Battalion King's Liverpool Regiment found itself at the Pilckem ridge, north of the famous town of Ypres. By that time, Jimmy Smith was so unwell that he could not function properly at the front, and his comrades knew it. They tried to ensure that he was given light duties, possibly out of the trenches, but to no avail.
	On 30 July 1917, on the eve of the battle of Pilckem ridge, Jimmy had a breakdown and deserted his post without orders again. At 11 pm, he was seen 5 miles from the front, wandering about in the town of Poperinghe, where he was arrested. A doctor at a dressing station declared him fit for duty, and Jimmy was charged with desertion. While detained in the military cells at Poperinghe town hall, Jimmy was ordered to undertake a two-hour drill. He refused to march and was also charged with disobedience. That was the beginning of the end of Private James Smith. The plain fact is that at that time he should have not been in action but serving his third punishment.
	On 22 August 1917, Jimmy found himself before a field general court martial for the third time in seven months. Major Watson, Lieutenant Pierce and Lieutenant Collins came to a unanimous verdict of guilty on both charges. At his trial, he was unrepresented, no defence witnesses were called and he never spoke a word. Jimmy accepted his fate without fear as he was sentenced to death. The court was well aware of his medical history and could have decided to transfer him to the Labour Corps, but no; instead, it decided to make an example of an experienced regular soldier, clearly suffering from serious shell shock having experienced horrors in several battles. The brigadier confirmed sentence on 22 August, the divisional commander on 28 August and the commander-in-chief Field Marshal Haig on 2 September.
	Early on the morning of 5 September, a small patrol of soldiers from Jimmy's own unit entered a barn at Kemmel Chteau in Belgium to clean their weapons prior to re-engagement with the enemy. They were told that, first, they had a special duty to perform, and they were taken outside into a courtyard where they found their friend, Jimmy Smith, blindfolded and tied to an execution chair in front of a wall, with a white target pinned to his tunic, just above his heart. Protesting furiously to the commanding officer, the 12-man firing squad11 privates and a non-commissioned officerwas summarily ordered to execute Jimmy. The lads aimed and fired, the majority deliberately missing the target. However, Jimmy was wounded, the chair was knocked over and he lay writhing in agony on the ground.
	The young officer in charge of the firing squad was shaking like a leaf, but he knew now that he had to finish Jimmy off by putting a bullet through his brain with his Webley pistol. He lost his nerve, however, and could not fire the pistol in his hand as Jimmy continued to writhe in agony on the ground.
	One of Jimmy's friends, 23643 Private Richard Blundell, who hailed from Everton in Liverpool, was then ordered by the commanding officer to take the Webley pistol and kill Jimmy. Jimmy's death was recorded on that day at 5.51 am. The 12 members of the firing squad were given 10 days' leave after that tragic event in the heat of battle. That was unusual.
	Richard Blundell died in Liverpool 70 years later in February 1989, when he was well into his 90s. As he fell in and out of consciousness, his son William heard him utter the words, What a way to get leave. Eventually the story that I have just told about Jimmy's execution emerged, and Richard Blundell's final request to his son was to seek forgiveness from Jimmy Smith's family for what he had done. His action on that morning in September 1917 had clearly been on his mind for 70 years. It was the first time that his family can recall his speaking of his experiences in the great war. The author of a book on the Liverpool pals had tried unsuccessfully to interview him about his experiences. In my view, Dickie Blundell also faced a life sentence, perhaps worse than the fate of Private James Smithwe will never know.
	For a long time after the great war of 1914-18, shame hung over the families of soldiers such as Private James Smith and their names were not added to those of their comrades on our war memorials or rolls of honour, or written into our books of remembrance. However, Mrs. Freda Hargreaves has told me that her family felt no shame and that they proudly owned a photograph of Jimmy, which stood over the mantelpiece for many years after the war ended.
	After a long campaign, the Labour Government pardoned those soldiers who were shot at dawn, like Private James Smith in 1917. An amendment to the Armed Forces Bill was introduced in the autumn of 2006 to pardon 306 soldiers, and the measure received Royal Assent on 8 November 2006. I am pleased that several colleagues who played an important role in bringing that about are present in the Chamber, and I thank them for being here.
	However, Private James Smith's name has still not been added to the book of remembrance in Bolton town hall, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary believes that it now should be. I believe that Jimmy Smith was the only soldier from Bolton to be shot at dawn in the great war. At least today we have recognised him for what he obviously wasby no means a coward, but an extremely brave soldier who was made seriously ill by his traumatic experiences in several battles in the great war. He is buried in the military cemetery at Kemmel Chteau in Belgium in grave M.25. On the grave are the words, Gone but not forgotten. I hope that he will always be remembered by the people of Bolton and that his bravery will finally be recognised. In a different way, he also paid the ultimate price for the rest of us. He, too, laid down his life for our freedom, albeit in a different way.
	As a footnote, I can tell my hon. Friend that tomorrow evening I expect that Bolton council will agree to add Private James Smith's name to the roll of honour, and that a ceremony will be held later this year. We have suggested that an appropriate date would be 27 June, which is armed services day.
	Bolton council has let it be known that it is prepared to add any other names to its roll of honour that have been missing to date for any reason. I hope that my hon. Friend agrees that all local authorities should be encouraged to follow suit.

John Reid: I was not aware of the subject of the debate until about 20 minutes ago. I heard the opening words of my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) as I left the Chamber, and came back precisely to identify myself with his comments.
	I was the Minister who reopened the subject in 1997-98, and I remember it well. In all my years in Government and in the nine posts that I held, I cannot think of any more heart-wrenching task that I took on or was given to me. I personally examined about half the 306 cases, and I am eternally grateful to the officials who went through them, including my military adviser at the time, Simon Gillespie, who sat up, night after night, going through individual cases.
	I will not rehearse some of the heart-breaking stories, but I will say this. First, recognising the suffering undergone by those who were executed at dawn and their families is in no way to minimise the equal sacrifices of those who went over the top. I believe that they were all victims. Secondlythis is the only respect in which I differ slightly from my hon. Friendwe should not issue a carte blanche condemnation of the military hierarchy. The truth is that there were some 30,000 cases that could have qualified for a death sentence, but 90 per cent. of those concerned did not receive one. Of the 3,000 who did, 90 per cent. of those sentences were commuted by the military hierarchy. The records were destroyed, I think in 1924. However, it is extremely likely that the reason why those 2,700 sentences were commuted and only 306 individuals were condemned to deaththat is a large number, however, because it is 306 tragediesis, I believe, although I cannot prove this because the evidence has gone, probably that in many cases the medical and the mental condition of the person who had been sentenced to death was recognised.

Brian Iddon: If I gave the impression that I was being critical of the military at that time, it is the wrong impression. They were different times and they were difficult times. People were in the heat of battle and I recognise that they did what they had to do.

John Reid: Perhaps I phrased my comment wrongly. It was not meant as a vicarious criticism of my hon. Friend; it was about whether people recognised shellshock or post-traumatic stress, or whatever it was at the time. I believe that many people did, albeit not because of medical evidence, but because of their personal experience. I think that that is why 2,700 death sentences out of those 3,000 cases were eventually commuted.
	Having said those two things, I do not think that there is any doubt that each case was a tragedy. I said earlier that I would not mention any of them, but two stick in my mind. The first involved a young boy in his teens whose last words were: Don't tell my mother. Facing an execution squad, he could think only of the effect that it would have, not on him, when the bullets landed, but on his mother, when the word reached home. The second case was this. At the back of one of the files that I went through, I found, as latterly I found in my father's filehe fought in the second world wara little bit for the soldier's will. Soldiers could leave all their worldly possessions in their wills. I recall that the total possessions of one of the soldiers who was executed were the three days' wages that he was owed up to the day of his execution, which he left to his fiance in Northern Ireland. Such cases deeply moved me.
	I was told on the highest legal advice at the timeI can say that now that I am not a Ministerthat I could not give a legal pardon. As it was explained to me, I understand that it is impossible to give such a pardon, first, because there were no surviving witnesses, and secondly, because there was no real evidence to overturn a duly arrived at verdict. Thirdly, of those 306 people, even if there had been sufficient evidence in the numerous pages of brown foolscap paperoften they were not transcripts, but summary records of what had happened in the field general courts martialwe would have had to test perhaps 14 cases and left those in the remaining 280 to 290 cases re-condemned. I took the decision at the time that we could not give a legal pardon, but that we should go as far as we could. I will return to that in a second.
	I was very grateful to get a second chance at the Ministry of Defence some years later, when I returned as Secretary of State for Defence. During the interval between being Armed Forces Minister and being Secretary of State, I discovered that New Zealand had apparently managed to accomplish that which I had been told was impossible in Britain. Naturally, and in my normal delicate fashion, I interviewed some of my officials who were still there about why that which we had found impossible had been found possible elsewhere. We re-opened the inquiry, and I am glad to say that my successor, my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock and Loudoun (Des Browne), did a great deal of work on the matter as Defence Secretary. The result is as is known.
	The reason that I am supporting my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East tonight is that even at the first stage, in 1998, when we were saying that there was no legal pardon availableI know that my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) was deeply disappointed by thatI said that, although I found it impossible to give a legal pardon, we would redefine pardon as something other than a legality, and say that, in the eyes of all humanity in this country, those people who had suffered such a terrible fate would indeed be pardoned, in substance if not in legality. Subsequently, of course, we were able to add a legal pardon to that.
	At that time, I did three things simultaneously. The first was to say that, as those people had been pardoned, their names should be added back into the books, and on to the memorials and cenotaphs. Secondly, I said that they should be recognised as victims of the great war, just as everyone else who had fallen in that war was recognised. In that way, their relatives would have a cloud lifted from them. Thirdlyalthough it was hardly noticed at the timeI announced the abolition of the death penalty in the British armed forces, which was enacted by the next Armed Forces Bill. Yet, some 10 years later, some of those names have apparently not been added back in that way.
	I hope that what my hon. Friend said tonight was true, and that the case of Jimmy Smith is about to be rectified by having his name added back on to the memorials. I hope, moreover, that that will be an example for other councils and authorities throughout the country, and that they will now recognise what has been recognised over two stages in Parliament, over 10 yearsnamely, that the names should be added back and that the families involved should have no shame.
	Having been a Minister, I now have this rare opportunity to say thank you to those who pricked the conscience of Ministers and cajoled, persuaded, drove and whipped them into line. That includes several Members who are here tonight. There cannot be many more worthwhile causes to which they could have applied their minds throughout that period, and I am delighted to be here tonight, no longer as a Minister, but as someone who is part of a group who fully support what my hon. Friend is asking for.

Andrew MacKinlay: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on his debate. I mean it from the bottom of my heart when I say that he has written a page in Bolton's history tonight. One thing that emerged from the campaign to grant pardons, which lasted 14 years in this place, was the fact that this part of British history had been suppressed, and not explained. I believe that history has to be written with clarity and precision, and that includes the parts with which the establishment are unhappy and uncomfortable.
	One of the delights of getting the pardons in 2006 was the fact that so many of our countrymen and womenand school students in particularhad learned more about the first world war as a result of the campaign. Through my hon. Friend, I want to congratulate Bolton council on its initiative. I have visited the town hall at Poperinghe, where this soldier's first trial took place, on many occasions, and I have seen a post of execution there. Many people were executed in Poperinghe town hall's courtyard. I have also been to Kemmel. I hope that those on Bolton council, and many of the schools there, will take that short trip across to Belgium, so that people can reflect on this soldier and the many others from the Bolton area who lie buried in sacred territory there.

Brian Iddon: I have a great deal of respect for my hon. Friend, especially regarding the campaign we are discussing tonight. He might like to know that I intend to send this speech to the secondary schools in my constituency, so that they are made aware of a little part of their history.

Andrew MacKinlay: I think that that is a wonderful initiative, and I know that other Members of Parliament will want to follow suit in according respect to soldiers with roots in their constituency.
	The Minister of State and his predecessor went to great lengths to mark the 90th anniversary of the Armisticeand they did so very successfully, as three veterans were in attendance. That means that this is not ancient history: those people, living beings from the great conflict, were actually there. My follow-up pointmy hon. Friend's contribution this evening endorses itis that just as the American civil war has become a part of the American psyche, so has the first world war become part of ours. The conflict in which the soldier we have commemorated tonight took part represents a seminal moment in our history. When this soldier went to war, there were cavalry participating and many of the combating forces wore bright uniforms; yet by the end of the war, we had seen weapons of mass destruction and bombers. At the same time, there was tremendous social change with the extension of women's suffrage and greater popular representation in this place after the war.
	We cannot, therefore, overdo this issue. My hon. Friend has reinforced the importance of the first world war tonightit is something we need to understand and we need to reflect more on the brave soldiers who fought just like the soldier from Boltonso I would encourage the Minister to do more to widen access to information about world war one and to encourage school students to study it, to reflect on it and to commemorate the brave struggle of men who did their very best on behalf of their country in this most awful conflict, which still has its resonance today.

Kevan Jones: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) on securing tonight's debate to highlight the tragic story of Private James Smith and on his campaign to press for the local authorities in Bolton to add this soldier's name to their book of remembrance. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Airdrie and Shotts (John Reid) for his contribution and I pay tribute to his involvement in the process of finally getting pardons for these individuals. I pay tribute also to my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) for his tenacious campaign to secure the pardons. I know that he worked closely with an old constituent of mine from when I was a member of Newcastle city councilJohn Hipkin from Walkergate in Newcastle, who wrote a book and was unrelenting in his campaign to secure the pardons.
	In 1998, on the 80th anniversary of the Armistice, the poet laureate, Andrew Motion, wrote:
	Those guns may have fallen silent eighty years ago, but their echoes neither die nor even fade away.
	I reflected on those words when, on the 90th anniversary last November, we witnessed a very moving ceremony at the Cenotaph at which the three surviving UK-resident veterans of world war one laid wreaths to commemorate those who lost their lives in that great war. Sadly, one of them has passed away since that commemoration.
	There are few alive today who have personal memories of those who marched away to war, but never came back. However, across the UK, millions of men, women andas my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock saidchildren shared that poignant moment through the medium of television, and nowadays through the internet. I reinforce his point about ensuring that these tragic events are not forgotten and that future generations learn from them.
	Clearly, the first world war is part of the UK's culture, which is not surprising. It represented war on an industrial scale, and I do not think that any family in any community throughout the United Kingdom was untouched. My office in the Sacriston community centre contains a list of names of the fallen in the small mining village of Sacriston. Anyone who looks at the list and notes the number of individuals who fell in that small community will appreciate that it must have had a devastating impact, which I do not think we can imagine in modern times.
	We must not forget the events of that time. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East has done two things tonight. Obviously he has raised a very important case, but, as the hon. Member for Thurrock said, he has not only put on record his tribute to this individual but raised a wider issue, and I thank him for that.
	A part of my job that I find fascinating is the history of my Department, and the living history with which we are dealing today.

Jim Devine: Speaking of living history, a constituent of mine, John Patterson, flew on 37 bombing missions in the second world war and ended the war flying around Africa with Lord Mountbatten. He now visits schools to explain exactly what things were like during the war: real live history. I do not know whether we have a checklist of such people who are still alive and can tell real stories, right up to this moment, including people who are serving in Afghanistan and Iraq. As a local Member of Parliament, I have no way of contacting those people. A checklist would preserve the memory of people who have been in combat, and allow some contact with those who are currently in combat.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have no desire to take anything away from the valued work that those individuals have done, but I think the hon. Gentleman will have noted the title of tonight's Adjournment debate. Perhaps he will be able to raise his point with the Minister on another occasion.

Kevan Jones: I will of course follow your guidance, Madam Deputy Speaker, but my hon. Friend has raised an interesting point. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East said that he would send copies of the report of tonight's debate to schools, with the aim of communicating the facts to future generations, and my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Devine) has spoken of veterans visiting schools to pass on their memories.
	In Fromelles in northern France, the graves of 400 British and Australian soldiers were recently discovered. A project is now under way, involving the Australian Government and the Commonwealth War Graves Commission, to recover, identify where possible and rebury those remains in the first newly created CWGC cemetery since the second world war. That has stimulated a great deal of interest, not just in this country but, according to my Australian counterparts, in Australia as well.
	Increased participation not just in the educational projects that have been mentioned tonight but in genealogy means that many relatives are researching their family histories and uncovering facts surrounding their forebears for the first time. Some of those discoveries have been disturbing, revealing executions during the first world war.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East pointed out, some of the relatives knew the circumstances of their loved ones' deaths, and certainly did not see them as a cause for shame or any stain on the character of their families. However, I hope that the granting of the statutory pardon in November 2006 has ensured that relatives who did feel shame have experienced some relief, and have recognised that no shame attaches to any of the individuals who were executed or their families. The stigma of dishonour should have been well and truly lifted.
	Those executions were tragic episodes, but as the hon. Member for Thurrock pointed out, they must be set against the unprecedented scale of the slaughter during the first world war. Granting the pardon may have little meaning for the individual men, but to the individual families it has meant a great deal.
	Thankfully, public perception has changed. That is why, when we introduced the pardon in 2006, it was broadly welcomed by most individuals, although I recognise the strong disagreements that there have been about the issue over many years.
	As my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East has said, Private Smith is officially commemorated by his headstone in Kemmel Chateau military cemetery. His name also appears on the Commonwealth War Graves Commission Debt of Honour register. Additionally, symbolic wooden stakes are set around the Shot at Dawn memorial at the National Memorial Arboretum near Lichfield, Staffordshire. Those bear the names of British or Commonwealth servicemen executed during the first world war. I was privileged in January to visit that memorial. I recommend that hon. Members who have not had a chance visit the National Memorial Arboretum. The Shot at Dawn memorial is a simple but moving memorial. Private Smith is among those individuals who are commemorated there.
	The Cenotaph, the nation's war memorial, bears only the inscription The Glorious Dead and the dates of the two world wars. No distinction is made in respect of race, gender, colour, creed, or place or circumstances of death of those whom it commemorates. So, too, in the thousands of cemeteries and memorials across the world, without distinction, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission officially commemorates all the men and women who died in the service of Britain and her empire during the first world war. Many do not appreciate that, from the outset, those who were executed by firing squad were commemorated equally with their comrades who died in other circumstances during the first world war. The commission provided identical graves and appropriate headstones for their graves. Some of those graves were lost later.
	While commending any initiative that commemorates the sacrifices of those who served in Her Majesty's armed forces, it is important to understand that, beyond the official commemoration to mark a serviceman's final resting place, the Government do not have responsibility for either the funding or maintenance of many memorials such as the one at Bolton town hall. As my hon. Friend and many hon. Members know, there are around 70,000 war memorials in the United Kingdom and they take a wide variety of forms, including books, to which my hon. Friend referred, windows, lichgates, playing fields and buildingseven hospitals, chapels and community halls.
	I know that the names of many of those executed men have already been added to many local war memorials as a result of local pressure or family initiatives. I think that that is appropriate; those individuals should be added to those local memorials. I fully support the inclusion of Private Smith's name in his local book of remembrance and I am very pleased to hear that Bolton council will agree tomorrow to add Private James Smith's name to that roll of honour. It is a fitting tribute that his name will be added to the roll of honour. My hon. Friend has paid him a great tribute tonight by speaking about him many years after his death and by putting him on the record of the House, so that future generations can not only read the debate but ensure that we do not forget about brave individuals such as Private Smith.
	 Question put and agreed to.
	 House adjourned.